- (1.) HEARD learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
(2.) CHALLENGE herein is to the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 28.10.2013 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 1 challenging the order of his dismissal from service dated 22.10.2009 and the appellate order dated 29.10.2010 has been allowed. The said orders have been quashed and the respondent no. 1 has been deemed to have retired voluntarily on 29.07.2008 with entitlement to consequent retiral benefits.
(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent no. 1 herein was selected and appointed as Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the year 1984. It is asserted by him that he submitted an application dated 29.04.2008 for voluntary retirement from service before the concerned authority in person. On 01.05.2008 a first information report was lodged against him under Sections 147, 148, 323, 392, 507 and 420 IPC by a private person. He was arrested on 02.05.2008 and was enlarged on bail on 08.05.2008. He was placed under suspension on 22.05.2008. In pursuance to a show cause notice dated 31.12.2008 he was given the punishment of censure on 24.03.2009 based on the incident in respect of which the F.I.R had been lodged against him. On 15.01.2009 disciplinary proceedings for imposition of a major punishment were initiated against him under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Charge sheet dated 17.01.2009 was issued to him. After initiation of theses proceedings for the first time on 28.1.09 the opposite party no.1 requested for consideration of his alleged application for voluntary retirement without mentioning the date on which it was submitted. The charge related to his absence from duty for the period 2.5.08 to 15.6.08 without intimating the superior officers. The said disciplinary proceedings resulted in the major punishment of dismissal from service being imposed on him on 20.10.2009. An appeal was preferred against the said dismissal which was rejected on 29.10.2010. In the interregnum, as the alleged application for voluntary retirement, said to have been filed on 29.04.2008, was not accepted, the respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal bearing Claim Petition No. 1415 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondents therein, to accept the said application and allow him post retiral dues with interest. It is said that after passing of the dismissal order this claim petition was dismissed as having become infructuous and the said order was not challenged any further by the respondent no. 1.;