(Delivered by Virendra Kumar-II, J.)

1. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law, hence the same are being decided together.

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been instituted assailing common judgment and order dated 6.5.2016 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal')in Claim Petition No. 83 of 2016 (Nawab Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and in Claim Petition No. 84 of 2016 (Nawab Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the Tribunal has allowed both the aforesaid claim petitions by delivering common judgment and impugned order dated 6.3.2010 relating to Claim Petition No. 83 of 2016 and impugned order dated 28.5.2010 relating to Claim Petition No. 84 of 2016 have been quashed. It is directed that respondent no. 1-Nawab Singh shall be entitled for consequential benefits arising out of quashing of impugned orders.

3. The pleadings of writ petitions are almost same, therefore these pleadings are dealt with and writ petitions are being taken up together.

4. It is pleaded in grounds of writ petitions that respondent no. 1-Nawab Singh was initially appointed in the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 14.10.1986. He was promoted on the post of Deputy Project Manager on 5.6.2009. When respondent no. 1 was posted as Deputy Project Manager, Faizabad, punishment orders dated 6.3.2010 and 28.5.2010 were communicated to him in the matter relating to his tenure in district Gorakhpur. It was alleged in the punishment order that respondent no. 1 had not completed the work of bridges according to the target fixed by the department. Respondent no. 1 made representation on 4.6.2010 against the above punishment orders. It was alleged by him that he had already been punished vide order dated 6.3.2010 regarding the same work of the project, which were not completed according to target. It was also alleged by him that the funds were not made available by the department in time, whereas respondent no. 1 had requested the authority concerned for providing funds, but the same were not allotted, therefore he was not responsible for the same.

5. It is further pleaded that punishment orders dated 6.3.2010 and 28.5.2010 has been passed by the disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 37 (1) of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, because no opportunity was given to respondent no. 1 to submit his explanation in the matter and these orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent no. 1 submitted reminder representation dated 28.12.2013 and appeal dated 8.4.2014 for quashing the punishment before the Chairman, U.P. State Bridges Corporation Limited but no action has been taken till date.

6. It is also pleaded in the petition that Managing Director, U.P. Bridge Corporation Limited did not apply his own mind in the matter and punishment orders were passed on the direction and dictates of Hon'ble Minister of Public Works Department.

7. It is mentioned that according to Rule 37 (1) of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, before imposing minor punishment a show cause notice should have been issued to the claimant/respondent no. 1. It is also alleged by claimant/respondent no. 1 that after lapse of more than six months, representation/appeal filed by respondent no. 1 has not been decided by the Chairman, though it was mandatory to decide the same within six months from the date of its submission. Therefore, respondent no. 1 sent a notice dated 5.12.2015 asking the authorities for decision of his representation/ appeal within a period of one month. These representations/appeal have not been decided therefore, he had no other alternative remedy except to approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

8. It is further pleaded that respondent no. 1 instituted claim petition no. 83 of 2016 and 84 of 2016 before the Tribunal, which were contested by the p