UMA NATH SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS writ pe­tition ha been preferred again t the order dated 4th November, 2003 pa ed by the U.P. state Public service Tribunal in claim peti­tion No. 1052 of 2001 dismissing it on the ground of being filed in violation of section 4(5) of the U.P. Public service (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
(2.) IT appear that the petitioner was sub­jected to a departmental inquiry under Regulation 28 of the U.P. Agriculture Propjet Market Board (Officer and Employee Establishment) Regulation, 1984 (for short "the Regulation of 1984") and Rule relating thereto. The inquiry finally ended in a minor punishment a imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the aid order of Disciplinary Authority an appeal was filed before the Chairman, who being not compe­tent to decide the appeal in term of a resolu­tion pa ed by the U.P. Agriculture Produce Market Board (for short 'the Board') returned the appeal with suggestion vide letter dated 13-11-2001 to file it before. Competent Au­thority i.e. secretary (Agriculture). Govern­ment of U.P. However, the petitioner could not do o a before this letter could be received, the petitioner filed a claim petition on 14-09-2001. Learned counsel for the peti­tioner submitted that the aid letter was never received by the petitioner, and further, im­ply by way of a resolution without carrying out a corresponding amendment in the Regu­lation of 1984, the petitioner may not have been a ked to make a representation before secretary (Agriculture), Government of U.P. Regulation 28, according to petitioner, deal with the disposal of appeal. However, accord­ing to learned counsel, under the aid Regu­lation, only an Officer senior to the Disci­plinary Authority in hierarchy the Compe­tent Authority to decide an appeal, therefore, the petitioner had correctly submitted the appeal to the Chairman of Board.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel thus, submitted that the impugned judgment infirm and defec­tive for two reason, namely, that the peti­tioner though submitted hi representation before the competent authority, it was wrongly held by the Tribunal that he had not availed the alternative remedy available un­der the relevant rule and regulation and secondly that the Chairman a summing to be not competent should not have returned the ap­peal in term of the resolution pa ed with­out carrying out corresponding necessary amendment in the regulation of 1984.;