Hon’ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.—This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.12.2017. Restoration Application (CMA No. 132244 of 2017) has been allowed vide order dated 19.3.2018 and writ petition has been restored to its original number.

2. Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.2017 passed in Claim Petition No. 1419 of 2009 and order dated 6.11.2017 passed in review petition No. 78 of 2017 by the State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

4. It is pleaded in the grounds of writ petition that disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner by not conducting the inquiry as provided under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rules) 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rule, 1999). The inquiry has been conducted by the inquiry officer without fixing date, time and place of inquiry and without giving opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner has been punished vide orders dated 24.5.2001 and 22.8.2001 and punishment of censure as well as stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has also been imposed against him. It is mentioned that review petition, preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected vide order dated 16.6.2009. Vide order dated 22.8.2001, his salary during suspension period has been withheld.

5. It is further submitted that claim petition was heard by the Tribunal and it erroneously held that claim petition preferred by the petitioner is barred by period of limitation while the petitioner has specifically stated in claim petition that claim petition being preferred challenging the order passed on review representation dated 22.11.2008, which was preferred by him under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1999.

6. It is contended that for preferring review, there is no limitation provided according to rules. The reviewing authority while passing order dated 16.6.2009 on merits, has not taken into consideration any plea for limitation. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by stating that period between order of punishment and order of review will not be taken into account for the purpose of limitation, ignoring provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act.

7. It is further submitted that according to provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a Court on first instance or appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded. Therefore, the period spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting in good faith in a Court, which has no jurisdiction, is liable to be excluded, while computing the period of limitation for filing the suit. It is further contended that in review petition, the petitioner had taken a ground that order passed by him under Section 22 and 30 of the Trade Tax Act were found legal and therefore, he cannot be punished on the basis of that very quasi-judicial order passed by him.

8. It is further contended that the petitioner has also relied upon sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal Act, 1976), which provides for the purposes under sub-section 5, a public servant shall be deemed to have been availed of all the remedies available to him if a final order has been passed by the State Government, and an authority or officer thereof or other person to pass such order under such rule or regulation or contract, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such public servant in connection with the grievance. The petitioner has availed remedy of review representation as provided under Rule 14 of the Rule 1999. This fact