Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 (Annexure-1), passed by the respondent No. 1 Tribunal allowing the claim petition of the respondent employee and setting aside the order of termination dated 25.5.1988.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this are that the said respondent employee was involved in a criminal case under Section 409, I.P.C. During the pendency of the criminal case, enquiry was held against him and his services were terminated on the basis of the enquiry report vide order dated 25.5.1988. Respondent was discharged by the criminal court in view of the provisions of Section 169, Cr.P.C. and in view of the submission of the final report by the Investigating agency. He submitted an application for reinstatement which was rejected as his termination was based oh enquiry report. Being aggrieved, he preferred the Writ Petition No. 17710 of 1988. During the pendency of the writ petition, he was discharged vide order dated 18.9.1990. When the writ petition came for hearing on 24.7.1997, petitioner did not press the petition. Thus, it was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequent thereto, petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No. 2575 of 1998 before the respondent Tribunal claiming the relief of setting aside the order dated 25.5.1988.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by the present petitioner on the ground that as the earlier writ petition had been filed by the said employee, the claim petition was barred by constructive res judicata as well as being hopelessly time barred, the learned Tribunal rejected the said contention of the State and allowed the petition, hence this petition.;