Point of Law: Scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising extra-ordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, has its own limits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Judgment dated 02.09.2021 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1350 of 2006 (Manbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others). (Annexure 16 to the writ petition).

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the State Government (Annexure 13 to the writ petition).

(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to fix the final pension of the petitioner and to disburse the same regularly, every month along with all arrears arisen on account of the difference between the provisional pension and the final pension within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition.”

Facts:

3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecutor on 05.09.1970. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Public Prosecutor and further promoted on the post of Senior Public Prosecutor on 17.07.1999. He retired from service on 31.12.2004.

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of complaint of his wife Smt. Rajendri Devi. A charge-sheet dated 15.09.1987 was served upon him. Another disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner on the basis of similar allegations by virtue of charge sheet dated 30.06.1992 and the inquiry proceeding was conducted. Subsequently, the matter arising from the first inquiry was compromised before the A.D.M. Saharanpur on the basis of some statement allegedly made by the aforesaid Smt. Rajendri Devi. Consequently, the proceeding against the petitioner, was dropped on 13.06.1997. The second inquiry also met the same fate in the light of the alleged statement of Smt. Rajendri Devi. From records, it appears that the aforesaid Smt. Rajednra Devi has also stated that no children were born from the wedlock of the petitioner.

5. Subsequently, it came to light that the petitioner has two children, namely Daughter - Kumari Preeti and Son - Sangeet Chaudhari from the wedlock of one Rajni Devi. The petitioner moved an application dated 13.07.1999 for taking benefit of family planning in which he also declared that he has two children. On these facts, amongst others, coming to light, a fresh inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 07.11.2003. A charge-sheet was issued. The petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer and led evidences. However, for reasons best-known to him, he did not produce Smt. Rajendri Devi and instead took the stand that Rajendri Devi and Smt. Rajni Devi, both are one and the same person who is his legally wedded wife and as such, there is no question of second marriage.

6. When the petitioner did not produce Smt. Rajendri Devi before the inquiry officer, then the inquiry officer himself took the statement of Smt. Rajendri Devi, who stated that she is not Rajni Devi. She stated that she is the first wife and she is daughter of one Amrit Singh, resident of Meerpurkalan, P.S. Babugarh, Post Ghunghral, Hapur, Ghaziabad. She further stated that second wife of the petitioner is Smt. Rajni Devi who is daughter of one Chhatar Singh, resident of Hanuman Teela, Khurja, District Bulandshahar. The inquiry officer also afforded opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the aforesaid Smt. Rajendri Devi but the petitioner did not appear to cross-examine her.

7. Based on evidences on record, the inquiry officer concluded