Deliberate violation and disobedience of court orders by the State were condemned, and the State was advised to issue appropriate directions for immediate compliance of court orders.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Harshwardhan and Sri R. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

2. The State has filed this Writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 26-8-1996 by means of which, the claim petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 against the order of punishment of dismissal from service has been set-aside and a direction has been issued that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay, allowances and seniority etc.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-State could not point out any illegality in the finding recorded by the State Public Services Tribunal, but only submitted that since the dismissal order was set-aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioners-State for holding fresh enquiry.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and we find that the Tribunal has recorded findings after taking into consideration the statement made in the written statement by the State-petitioners in paragraph 3-B, wherein it has been stated that since the respondent No. 1 absented in the enquiry and enquiry was held in absentia, therefore, the copies of the documents were not supplied nor they were required to be supplied. Besides this, the Tribunal has also found that the witnesses were examined, but the claimant-respondent No. 1 was not given any opportunity to examine them. There are various other grounds on which the Tribunal has found that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was not allowed reasonable opportunity in the proceedings.

5. Even, if the enquiry proceeded in absence of the claimant-respondent No. 1, the admitted fact is that the claimant-respondent No. 1 had requested for the supply of the documents, which were to be relied upon in the enquiry proceedings and had also requested for adducing his defence witness, but both of his prayers were not accepted, therefore, the claimant-respondent No. 1 could not adduce any evidence. These are few amongst other reasons given by the Tribunal which, are sufficient for holding that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service passed by the State-opposite parties, was passed on the basis of an enquiry, which could not be said to be an enquiry in the eye of law.

6. We, thus, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-State has, however, submitted that it is the admitted fact that the claimant-respondent No. 1 remained absent without sanctioned leave except for three days for which his leave was sanctioned and that he has not worked for such a long time. He has further submitted that since the claimant-respondent No. 1 absented for long time, therefore, he should not be allowed back wages from the date of passing of the dismissal order till he is reinstated in service. He has further prayed that the opportunity be given to hold the enquiry afresh.

8. Normally, in a matter, where the order of punishment of dismissal from service is set-aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice or on other technical grounds, but not on merits, liberty is given to the State for holding enquiry afresh. It is also on given facts and circumstances in each

and every case, the orders are passed curtailing the monetary benefits regarding payment of salary etc. for the period during which the employee does not remain in service.

9. In the case in hand, we find that the claimant-respondent No. 1 had gone on sanctioned leave for three days on 8-7-1985 and thereafter since he did not join the duties, the enquiry was initiated and concluded upon which a show cause notice was issued to the claimant-respondent No. 1 on 31-3-1986, to which the reply was submitted by the claimant-respondent No. 1 on 12-6-1986 and the punishment order was passed on 29-6-1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document