- (1.) BY the Court. - Heard Shri M.P. Gupta in person, an advocate of this Court. He has argued the case with great ability. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondent.
(2.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 28th December, 1962, has prayed to quash the orders dated 10.3.1995 and 21.7.1995 and to direct the opposite parties to deem that the petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted, and to pay arrears of salary of the posts with 18% interest. In Writ Petition No. 2376 of 1988, Mata Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and offers decided on 11.7.1994, a Division Bench of the Lucknow High Court observed that the Dhusia Committee made a recommendation for adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Registrar, but he could not be promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar, because he was placed under suspension on May 19, 1973. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him, with the issuance of a charge-sheet dated June 15, 1973. A punishment order was passed against him reducing him in the time scale. He filed a Claim Petition No. 263-III of 1982 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. The operation of the punishment order was stayed by the Tribunal. The claim petition was allowed on 21.8.1987, quashing the punishment order dated June 2, 1982, and allowing the punishing authority to proceed in its own discretion, in the matter of punishment in respect of charge No. 4, relating to acquisition of property, and breach of Rule 24, and charge No. 12. He was allowed to be in continuous service with arrears of salary, increments etc. unless some order to the contrary is made by the punishing authority within a period of three months.
(3.) AGGRIEVED the State of U.P. preferred a revision in the High Court. Learned Single Judge held that the impugned judgment of the Services Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Single Judge discussed the evidence against the petitioner and found that the Tribunal had considered the record of enquiry and that the judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any manifest error of law or any procedural irregularity.;