- (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 6th May, 1995 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) allowing the Claim Petition No. 371/1995 filed by the respondent No. 1-Sri S. P. Singh Pundir against the punishment order dated 31st January, 1995 whereby the petitioners have sought to recover a sum or Rs. 1,01,075.02 from him. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition mainly on three grounds: namely, the impugned order does not mention that the same has been passed on behalf of the Governor and, therefore, the Secretary was not competent to pass this order, the impugned order is non-speaking as it does not contain any reason and lastly that proceedings have been initiated after a long lapse of time i.e. after about 13 years. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of provisions of Article 166 of the Rules of the Business, even if the order does not mention that the same has been passed on behalf of the Governor still the same could not have been quashed on the ground that it has not been passed by the competent authority if it can be shown that the same was approved by the competent authority and the Secretary concerned under the Rules of the Business has only communicated. He further contended that even otherwise from a bare perusal of the order it is clear that it was a decision of the Governor which was communicated by the Principal Secretary and, therefore, it was incorrect on the part of the Tribunal to hold mat the order has not been issued on behalf of the Governor. He further submitted the proceedings could not have been quashed merely on the ground that same were initiated after a long lapse of time unless there is material to show that the respondent No. 1 was not in position to defend himself due to long lapse of time. He further submitted that the impugned order cannot be said to be non-speaking and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
(3.) HAVING considered the aforesaid submission we find that so far as the view of the Tribunal that the impugned order is without jurisdiction having not been issued on behalf of Governor, the same can not be upheld for the reason that the order itself says that the decision of the Governor i.e. the Government is being communicated by the Secretary (Prison) as is evident from the following: @Hindi;