- (1.) State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, Forest Department, U.P., Lucknow and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Department, U.P., Lucknow have preferred this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.07.2018 rendered by State Public Services Tribunal while dealing with Claim Petition No.1974 of 2017 titled 'Chandra Kant Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another'. Vide the impugned order, the petition filed by the writ respondent has been allowed. Order of punishment dated 29.06.2016 vide which two increments payable to the delinquent have been stopped with permanent effect; and recovery of Rs.49,997/- has been ordered, has been set aside. It appears that the writ respondent went up in statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2017 which order also was challenged before the State Public Services Tribunal. Both the orders have been set aside and the writ respondent has been held entitled to all consequential benefits.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State Shri Ajaay Kumar Singh and learned counsel for delinquent respondent no.1 Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari whose Power of Attorney is taken on record. In view of nature of the issue which is purely of legal nature, learned counsel having addressed the arguments plead that the case be decided at this stage itself.
(3.) The skeleton of facts and circumstances, as they emanate from the impugned order are that respondent no.1 Chandrakant Mishra was posted as Forest Ranger in District Ambedkar Nagar during the period 2005 - 2011. Show cause notice dated 23.12.2011 was issued to him relating to illegal felling of trees. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not give reply to the show cause notice. It virtually stands established that the respondent delinquent refused to participate in inquiry proceedings, despite opportunities of hearing having been given. It is further a finding of fact that the necessary documents were supplied to the delinquent which he had demanded, however he did not furnish any reply. Subsequent to conclusion of inquiry, show cause notice was issued to the delinquent, however he chose not to file reply. Learned counsel for the respondent/delinquent admits the fact that although opportunity of hearing was given, the respondent did not file reply, and did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. It is only after punishment was imposed vide order dated 29.06.2016, that statutory appeal was filed.;