Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri R. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2017 passed by opposite party No. 5/State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1884 of 2015, dismissing the claim petition on the ground of limitation, order dated 24.2.2000 passed by opposite party No. 4/Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, awarding the punishment for dismissal of services of the petitioner and order dated 27.10.2000 passed by opposite party No. 3/Dy. Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 24.2.2000.

3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner while working as Constable in District-Kanpur was absent from duty without sanctioned leave and preliminary enquiry had been conducted against him as per Rule 14 (1) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Discipline & Appeal) Rule 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Rule”) by the Circle Officer, Police Line, Kanpur, who on 24.2.1997 submitted the report of preliminary enquiry.

4. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.3.1997.

5. On 27.3.1997, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and on 24.6.1998, disciplinary authority/Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur had passed an order for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the said Rule. The Circle Officer, Anwarganj, Kanpur was appointed as an enquiry officer.

6. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, on 6.3.1999, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from his service under the said Rule and as to why the leave without pay may not be sanctioned for the entire period of absence from his duties.

7. By order dated 24.2.2000 passed by opposite party No. 4/Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, petitioner was dismissed from his services and his pay and allowances from the date of suspension upto dismissal of his services was forfeited treating the said period as sanctioned leave without pay on the basis of the doctrine of “No Work No Pay”.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.2000 passed by opposite party No. 4, petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the opposite party No. 3, which was dismissed by order dated 27.10.2000.

9. Thereafter, he filed a claim petition bearing No. 1884 of 2015, challenging his dismissal order dated 24.2.2000 passed by opposite party No. 4 as well as appellate order dated 27.10.2000 passed by opposite party No. 3.

10. By order dated 30.8.2017, State Public Services Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition No. 1884 of 2015, which reads as under :

“Petitioner has challenged order dated 24.2.2000 and 27.10.2000, since petition is barred by limitation in view of Section 5 (1) (b) of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that condonation of delay is possible on the basis of rule laid down in Hon’ble Apex Court judgment December 17, 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562/2012, “Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and others v. Union of India and others”, and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876/2014 “All Assam Ahom Association and others v. Union of India and others”. He further submitted that violation of fundamental rights granted in part III of constitution of India cannot be subjected to statutory limitations.

Learned P. O. objected on the ground of bar created by Section 5 (1) (b) of Act and submitted that Tribunal has no power to condone the delay as proceedings are original in nature. He placed before us Allahabad High Court’s Judgment given in the case of Karan Kumar Yadav v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and others, 2008 (2) AWC 1987 (LB).

In