JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned State counsel representing the petitioner.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow whereby the claim petition no.1343 of 2017 filed by respondent no.1 challenging the order of punishment of censure and the appellate order, has been allowed and the punishment of censure has been set-aside.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that finding given by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2019 to the effect that in absence of any mens rea the charge against respondent no.1, as alleged, would not amount to misconduct, is erroneous in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. J.Ahmad, (1979) AIR SC 1022.

4. A show cause notice was issued to respondent no.1 under Rule 10 (2) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1999'), which provides the procedure for award of minor punishment. According to said show cause notice, the petitioner was required to furnish his reply in respect of irregularities said to have been committed by him which are mentioned in said show cause notice dated 23.10.2015. The alleged irregularity attributed to the respondent no.1 was that as per requirement of Rule 10 (2) of U.P. Cable Television Network (Exhibition), Rules 1997, monthly details are required to be presented/furnished in Form-5, however, in the concerned file Form-5 was available only in relation to the months of November, 2014, December, 2014 and January, 2015 and that Form-5 in relation to earlier months were not available. The respondent no.1 submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide his letter dated 04.12.2015 and stated that at the time of inspection of the relevant file, all Forms-5 pertaining to the cable operator were available in separate Dak files, however, on account of urgency at the time of inspection only available Forms-5 were inserted in the file, but the cable operator has been making payment of entertainment tax every month in time. Along with the reply, respondent no.1 also annexed copies of all Forms-5 pertaining to the cable operator concerned, of the earlier months from the date respondent no.1 had taken charge of the area concerned. The said reply dated 04.12.2015 is on record which contains Formd-5 pertaining to earlier months from February, 2014 till December, 2014. The Commissioner, Entertainment Tax, U.P. however, passed an order on 19/21.01.2016 and found that respondent no.1 had not kept Forms-5 of every month relating to cable operator concerned though he was required to keep the same and accordingly awarded the respondent no.1 punishment of censure. Respondent no.1 challenged the said order dated 19/21.01.2016 by filing statutory appeal under the provision of Rules, 1999, which too was dismissed by the State Government vide its order dated 28.03.2017.

5. Challenging the aforesaid two orders i.e. the order of punishment dated 19/21.01.2016 and the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 28.03.2017, respondent no.1 preferred claim petition before U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2019. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has considered the reply submitted by respondent no.1 to the show cause notice and has concluded that issue at hand was only to the effect that respondent no.1 had not kept all Forms-5 of the cable operator in the file; rather they were kept in separate files and accordingly at the time of inspection, total number of Forms-5 found were less than the actual number of Forms-5 which were to be maintained and kept by respondent no.1. The Tribunal has given a finding that the relevant document, namely, Forms-5 were not kept in the file concerned, however, they were kept elsewhere, hence the same, at the most, may a