S.RAFAT ALAM, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow dated 11 -2 -1993 whereby the claim petition of respondent No. 1 against the order of his dismissal from service and recovery has been allowed. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(2.) WHEN this mater was taken up as fresh on 20 -7 -1993 before another Bench of this Court, the following interim order was passed: Respondent No. 1 shall be served by the office in ordinary course and petitioner shall also take steps to serve Respondent No. 1. Office shall do the needful in this regard. Respondent No. 2 need not be served. List for admission after four weeks. The order of recovery of arrears of wages of the Respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed provided Respondent No. 1 is reinstated by the petitioner within one month and paid his salary which is attached to his post for future regularly to the extent indicated above, the impugned order of Respondent No. 2 is stayed. Therefore, the operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 within one month and on payment of salary regularly. However, the payment of arrears of salary of Respondent No. 1 was stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to State as to whether the aforesaid order of this Court has been carried out by the petitioner or not. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents although Sri D.C. Srivastava, Advocate, has filed power and has also filed counter -affidavit and supplementary counter -affidavit. Though in the absence of compliance of this Court's earlier order dated 20 -7 -1993, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, but we have proceeded to hear out the matter and accordingly perused the impugned order.
(3.) THE petitioner is an instrumentality of the State Government created under the provisions of the U.P. Area Development Act, 1976. The Respondent No. 1 was working as Junior Clerk in Ram Ganga Command Workshop Tractor Repairs at Kisan Nagar, Pakri, Kanpur and during his posting in Ram Ganga Command Workshop, he was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in respect of several charges, a copy of the charge -sheet is enclosed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer after necessary enquiry submitted his report with the finding that all the charges have duly been proved against Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, by order dated 17 -10 -1981 he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, he challenged the order of dismissal before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 299/T/I/1985. The learned Tribunal having heard the parties by the impugned order set -aside the order of removal and ordered that the Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances. It was further ordered that the arrear amount should be paid within three months from the date of the order. However, the appointing authority was given liberty to consider the report of the Enquiry Officer independently without taking into account any extraneous material and to pass order according to law. It is surprising that the petitioner being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, instead of passing a fresh order in terms of the liberty given by the Tribunal, has chosen to challenge the order before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which we do not appreciate in the facts of the case.;