- (1.) Heard Shri Shatrughan Choudhary learned Additional Chief Standing counsel and Shri B.N.Rai for the respondents.
(2.) Instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner earlier petitioner was punished by order dated 7.2.1996 followed by order dated 19.4.1996 with dismissal from services. Order of the punishment was impugned before the tribunal in claim petition no. 198 of 1996 decided by judement and order dated 7.6.2005. The operative portion of the judgement and order dated 7.6.2005 is reproduced as under:- "The claim petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 7.2.1995 and 19.4.1996 are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in respect of imposition of penalty to the petitioner in the light of the observations made and the case law referred too in the body of judgement. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs."
(3.) It appears that while reconsidering the case of claimant respondent afresh with regard to penalty in the light of observation made by the tribunal lesser punishment has been awarded, with forfeiture of one month salary. The subsequent punishment awarded was impugned before the tribunal in claim petition no. 1249 of 2007. The tribunal allowed the claim petition by judgement and order dated 3.4.2012, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. While allowing the claim petition the tribunal had recorded a finding that salary was incorrectly fixed of the claimant respondents and after setting aside of the order of punishment and being restored in service he is entitled for payment of entire salary. The tribunal further held that while deciding the controversy earlier tribunal had not recorded a finding and issued direction thereon that the period during the petitioner was not in service should be treated as discontinuation of service. Accordingly tribunal had allowed the claim petition with regard to forfeiture of salary of about a month.;