U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 10-2-84 rejecting the application for recalling back the ex-parte judgment. Subsequently, it appears that the writ petition was sought to be amended and the original order dated 14-11-1983 by which the claim petition of the employee against his removal from service was allowed was also challenged. THE application for amendment was allowed but the amendment has not been incorporated so far. THE ground for challenging the ex-parte order is that a Single Member of the Tribunal could not have passed ex-parte order and before proceeding to pass ex-parte order the petitioner ought to have been informed and no information was given, and, as such, the order is illegal. In the amendment application no ground for challenging the original order passed by the Tribunal was taken except that one paragraph was added and the prayer clause was added.
(2.) SRI Sudhir Pandey, Advocate, holding brief for the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order in question, is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. Reference to the provisions of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision reported in Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 was made. Taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law, the contentions raised by the learned counsel are of no avail. Section 5 (1) (a) of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter known as the Act) reads as under :- "5. Powers and procedure of the Tribunal :-(1) (a) the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) or the rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and subject to the provisions of this section and of any rules made under Section 7, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its sitting and deciding whether to sit in public or in private : Provided...... (5) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of following matters: (i) setting aside an order or dismissal for default or an order passed by' it. ex-parte." The Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and in respect of matters not provided in the Act or Rules framed thereunder, it shall frame its procedure and follow the principles of natural justice. It has the powers to set aside an ex-parte order or order of dismissal for default and for it the procedure to be followed will be the same as has been vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in view of Section 5 (5) of the Act extracted above. Neither under the provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder, once an order for proceeding a case ex-parte is passed, the Tribunal is bound to give fresh notice to the party concerned. Such an order passed because of default of a party who is well aware of the proceedings would not offend the principles of natural justice. The tribunal in the instant case dismissed the application for recalling the ex-parte order after hearing the petitioner. Admittedly, written statement was not filed by the petitioner inspite of several opportunities. The removal order passed against the opposite party no. 2 was challenged by means of Claim Petition. Notice was issued to the petitioner who put in appearance and 23-8-1982 was fixed for filing written statement. An application for time was moved on behalf of the petitioner to file counter affidavit. The application was allowed and 25-11-1982 was fixed for filing counter affidavit. Again an application was moved by the petitioner for time which was allowed and 2-3-1983 was fixed for filing counter affidavit. On 2-3-1983 further time was sought for filing counter affidavit which was rejected and the Tribunal fixed 19-4-1983 for orders. On 19-4-1983 one Member, who was present, ordered for ex-parte hearing of the case without fixing any date. Thus, written statement was not filed even after lapse of eight months. It appears that the case was heard and disposed of on 8-11-1983 and judgment was also delivered on 14-11-1983. This shows the degree of negligence on the part of the petitioner, who after rejection of application for grant of further time kept mum for about 8 or 9 months and then woke up and made inspection of the records. The case was not finally decided by one member of the Tribunal The grievance of the petitioner in this behalf is that the intervening orders were passed by single Member. Rule 5 (2) of the Rules reads as follows :- "5. (2) If a member of any Tribunal is absent at any hearing, the remaining member may proceed with the case and may also pass such interlocutory orders as he deems fit but final orders in a case shall be passed only by both the members jointly." It appears that on both the dates the other member was not present. The petitioner has now here stated that even though the other member (?) still only one member has passed the order. It appears that the other Member was absent and, therefore, only one member had passed said order who could have passed interlocutory orders. Both the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner fall on the ground and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;