T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner filed a reference under section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act challenging an order dated 12-3-1975 by which certain punishments were imposed against him. During the pendency of the reference the service of the petitioner was terminated which was also challenged before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by another reference No. 1617(1) of 1976. THE Tribunal accepted the said reference No. 1617 (1) of 1976 but dismissed the claim petition No. 875 (1) of 1976 holding the recovery against the petitioner to be valid. Both these references were decided by the Tribunal by a common judgment dated 2-8-1977. THE petitioner then filed a review petition before the Tribunal. THE same was rejected on 18-4-1978. THE petitioner has impugned the aforesaid two orders of the Tribunal as also the order dated 12-3-1975 passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Gonda.
(2.) FOR the petitioner it is submitted that as the review petition was disposed of by only one member of the Tribunal the order dated 18-4-1978 is invalid. A copy of that order is Annexure no. 2 to the Writ Petition a perusal whereof would disclose that it was signed by only Sri R. C. Saxena a member of the Tribunal. The Chairman of that Tribunal did not sign that order. Clause (g) of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 provides that the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of reviewing its decision. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the constitution of the Tribunal. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that each Tribunal shall consist of Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. Subsection (4) of Section 3 provides that one of the members shall be designated by the State Government to be the Chairman of the Tribunal. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the said Act the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Rules, 1975 have been made. Rule 5 says that if a member of a Tribunal is absent at any hearing, the remaining member may proceed with the case and may also pass such interlocutory orders as he deems fit but final orders in a case shall be passed only by both the members jointly.
(3.) THE Tribunal has the power to review its decision vide clause (g) of subsection (5) of section 5 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act. So if a review petition is filed it has to be disposed of by the Tribunal, which obviously consists of two members. THE final order deciding the review petition cannot be passed by only one member of the Tribunal. THE final order on a review petition has to be passed only by both the members jointly. Admittedly the order dated 18-4-1978 rejecting the review petition was passed by only one member of the Tribunal and not by both the members jointly. That order dated 18-4-1978, is therefore, invalid and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also challenged the other orders mentioned in the petition. It is not necessary to deal with the validity of those orders for the simple reason that we are quashing the order dated 18-4-1978 which was passed on the review petition. The review petition will now have to be decided by the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner has sought the review of the order of the Tribunal dated 2-8-77. We, therefore, refrain from making any comments on the validity of the said order of 2-8-1977.;