SANJAY MISRA, SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) STANDING Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hari Shankar Singh for respondent No. 1 the sole contesting respondent.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.1993 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 420-F/V/88 of respondent No. 1 setting aside his dismissal order dated 23.4.1988 and directing the petitioner to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as police constable on 1.1.1974. While posted at Kanpur Dehat he was transferred to Kanpur City on'4.8.1984 whereupon he did not report to duty and remained absent till 7.4.1986. A charge sheet was issued to respondent No. 1 on 30.12.1988 on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence from duty even after availing joining time from 8.4.1984 to 7.4.1986 and after holding departmental enquiry the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon respondent No. 1. His appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, he preferred a claim petition under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 before the Tribunal contending that in the order of punishment the disciplinary authority regularised his absence from duty for the period in question and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondent was guilty of misconduct since regularisation of absence condoned the allegations of misconduct. He also contended before the Tribunal that proper enquiry was not conducted and he was not afforded adequate opportunity however the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition accepting his first contention that his period of absence was regularised, hence the respondent No. 1 would not have been said to be guilty of any misconduct and therefore, the impugned order of punishment was set aside and the claim petition has been allowed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for petitioners contended that merely for the reasons that subsequently the competent authority for various other purposes regularised the unauthorised absence of an employee, that would not result in a condoning misconduct of unauthorized absence and the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly illegal.;