- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned Stand ing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Srivastava learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that while the opposite party No. 1 was posted as Sub-Inspector at Badaun he applied for five days casual leave with effect from 8. 4. 1986 and reported for duty after fifty five days. A charge-sheet dated 10. 12. 1986 was issued to the opposite party No. 1. THE opposite party No. 1 never submitted any reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter on the basis of the enquiry report the opposite party No. 1 was dismissed from services by the order dated 20. 10. 1987, Against the dismissal order the opposite party No. 1 filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone which was dismissed by the order dated 21. 12. 1991. Being aggrieved by the appellate order and dis missal order the opposite party No. 1 also preferred the revision before the Direc tor General of Police which too was dismissed by the order dated 12. 2. 1997. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 20. 10,1987, the appellate order dated 21. 12. 1991 and the revisional order dated 12. 2. 1997 the opposite party No. 1 filed the Claim Petition under Section 4 of the U. P. State Public Services Tribu nal Act, 1976 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. THE said Claim Petition was contested by the petitioners by filing the written statement. THE State Public Services Tribunal after considering the material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the Claim Petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 20. 10. 1987, 21. 12. 1991 and 12. 2. 1997 with all conse quential benefits to the opposite party No. 1. Being aggrieved by-the judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sub mits that the charge-sheet dated 10. 12. 1986 was sent to the opposite party No. 1 at his address which is mentioned in the service record, but no reply was submitted by the opposite party No. 1. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer also sent notices to the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 never appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report to the disciplinary authority who has passed the impugned dismissal order in. accordance with law. He further submits that the Tribunal, in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, has quashed the impugned or ders on the ground that no date, time and place for enquiry was fixed by the Enquiry Officer. Sri V. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal. He further submits that the charge-sheet dated 10. 12. 1986 which was the basis for passing the dismissal order was never served upon the opposite party No. 1. He further submits that on the basis of the material on record the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that no date, time and place for enquiry was fixed by the Enquiry Officer and no information was given to the opposite No, 1.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party No. 1 while posted as Sub Inspector at Badaun proceeded on five days' casual leave with effect from 8. 4. 1986. The opposite party No. 1 reported for duty after fifty five days. On 3. 10. 1986 the opposite party No. 1 again proceeded for fifteen days, sanctioned leave but never reported for durty and thereafter the charge-sheet dated 10. 12. 1986 was sent to the opposite party No. 1 by the petitioners as alleged in the writ petition. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer passed the dismissal order on 20. 10. 1987. The appeal as well as the revision preferred by the opposite party No. 1 were dismissed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The Tribunal while quashing the impugned dismissal order, appellate order as well as the revisional order has recorded the findings of fact to the effect that no date, time and place for enquiry was fixed nor any information was given by the Enquiry Officer to the opposite party No. 1. The charge-sheet was also not served upon the opposite party No. 1. During the pendency of the Claim Petition the opposite party No. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation on 29. 2. 2000.;