- (1.) Heard Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel.
(2.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 540 of 2008 (Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). The Claim Petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on merit.The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in Claim Petition against the punishment or dismissal order dated 27.05.1994 along with Appellate Order dated 23.01.2008 with all consequential benefits.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as a Messenger in Radio Station, Ukhimath. He had gone on fourteen days leave on 07.06.1990, he had to join the duty on 27.06.1990, but he could not join the duty till 07.02.1993. On 07.02.1993 he joined the duty in afternoon. Thereafter, an inquiry was initiated against him for the charges firstly that he remained absent for 956 days from duty unauthorizedly, secondly for threatening to commit suicide and or commit any thing if payment would not have been done. The Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted a report opining that charges made against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner to which he replied, but without considering his reply, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal sanctioning leave without pay for the period of absence. Against the punishment order he filed an appeal on 01.06.1994. But when the appeal was not decided within a reasonable time he filed a claim petition being Claim Petition No. 2477 of 1994, which was decided on 05.07.2007. In compliance of the order dated 05.07.2007 the appeal was decided on 23.01.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 540 of 2008 on the ground that the documents on which charges were based, were not provided to the petitioner and that leave without pay has been sanctioned for the absence as a punishment which is not provided in CCA Rule and further that letter dated 12.03.1993 was not on record and finally that the period of absence has been regularized by sanctioning leave. It is contended that the appellate authority has not considered the reply of the petitioner and the prayer of voluntary retirement has not been considered by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority.;