K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) SINCE the points involved in these four petitions are common, we propose to decide these petitions by single judgment.
(2.) THE Petitioners are in employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Agriculture Inspectors. Each one of them was incharge of Government Seed Store and Fertilisers. It appears that there was shortage in stock of seed and fertiliser. The Petitioners were asked to explain the shortages and submit their explanation. They submitted their explanation and denied any liability for the loss on account of the shortages which may have occurred on a number of pleas which are not relevant for the purpose of the present petitions. The Distt. Agriculture Officer passed an order for the recovery of the amount for the loss in fertiliser and seeds given to the Petitioners' custody who were incharge of the seed stores at the respective places of their appointment. The District Agriculture Officer directed for the recovery of the specified amount under Rule 5 -B(b) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules from the Petitioners' salary. The Petitioners took up the matter in appeal before the Director of Agriculture but he rejected the appeals on the ground that the same were not maintainable. The Petitioners thereupon filed claims under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The Petitioners' claim was contested by the State and the other authorities of the Agriculture Department. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated 26th Dec. 1977, accepted the reference and quashed the order of the District Agriculture Officer directing the recovery of the amount of losses from the Petitioners' salary. The Tribunal, however, made an observation in the operative portion of the order that the punishing authority shall be free to take fresh proceedings against the Petitioners according to law if so advised. It appears that the Petitioners were not satisfied by the orders of the Tribunal and they approached this Court by means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Tribunal in so far as it permitted the punishing authority to take fresh proceedings against the Petitioners. It must at once be noted that the Service Tribunal set aside the order of the District Agriculture Officer holding the Petitioners guilty for the loss alleged to have been caused on account of the shortages in fertiliser and seeds and it also quashed the orders of recovery of the amount of loss from their salary. The Tribunal held that the District Agriculture Officer did not apply his mind to the various pleas raised by the Petitioners, instead he passed the orders mechanically. In view of this finding the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to deal with the other pleas raised by the Petitioners on the merits of the shortages and their liability to the shortages. The Tribunal granted relief to the Petitioners as it quashed the order of recovery. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, submitted that after quashing the order of recovery the Tribunal had no further jurisdiction to tender advice to the punishing authority or to direct for the taking of fresh proceedings against the Petitioners. These petitions are therefore directed against that portion of the order which leaves it open to the punishing authority to take fresh proceedings in the matter.
(3.) SECTION 4 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provides that any public servant shall refer his claim relating to a dispute between him and the employers and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final subject to the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 5 lays down that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act. Instead it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice subject to the provisions of the rules made under Section 7. The Tribunal is free to regulate its own procedure. There is no provision either under Section 5 or under any of the provisions of the Act or under the rules framed under Section 7 of the Act prescribing the scope of the Tribunal's power. There is no express provision, nor any provision by implication, affecting the Tribunal's jurisdiction to issue direction to the employers or to the public authorities which may be arrayed as parties to the proceedings before it. In the absence of any limitation on the power of the Tribunal it is always open to the Tribunal to issue directions having regard to the facts of each case. Unless this power is conceded to the Tribunal, many a time the dispute or the claim referred to it may remain decided half way, that will not subserve the public interest. We are therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue directions while disposing off a claim petition.;