- (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
(2.) Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.7.2015 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 2052 of 2014 : Shiv Das Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, quashed the order of punishment dated 23.1.2014 and directed the State authorities (petitioners) to make available all the admissible consequential service benefits to the respondent No.1 herein (claimant) within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(3.) According to the petitioners, while posted as Junior Engineer at Shikarganj Section with Head Quarter Chakia in Chandra Prabha Division, Varanasi, a charge-sheet dated 26.4.2011 was served upon the claimant-respondent No.1 on the ground that on 19/20 August, 2008, due to 10-20 hours rains, water over Chandra Prabha Dam regulator had over flowed, causing damage to crops of 10-12 villages and local people were put to difficulty. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the respondent No.1 has submitted his reply on 26.5.2011, denying the charges. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 16.9.2011, whereby charges levelled against the respondent No.1 were found partially proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, a show cause notice annexing copy of the enquiry report was issued to the respondent No.1 on 15.10.2012. The respondent No.1, in response to the show cause notice, submitted his reply on 4.12.2012. The State Government, after considering the reply of the respondent No.1, passed the order dated 23.1.2014, inflicting minor punishment of censure and stoppage of two annual increments for a period of three years. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.1 had approached the Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 2052 of 2014. The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 14.7.2015, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of punishment dated 23.1.2014 with a further direction to the petitioners to make admissible consequential service benefits to the respondent No.1 within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.;