U.P.Power Corporation Limited Thru Managing Director vs State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow & Anr.

S.C. Chaurasia, J.

Heard Shri S.K.Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Mishra learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing counsel.

Feeling aggrieved with the orders of punishment dated 21.2.2002, 27.1.2003 and 3.5.2007 the petitioner had approached the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.? Petitioner was removed from service in pursuance to departmental inquiry while working on the post of Executive Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The order of removal was impugned before the Tribunal.? The Tribunal recorded a finding that no regular inquiry was held in accordance with law.? Documents were not proved and material witnesses were not summoned to substantiate the charges.? Copy of the documents were also not provided to the petitioner, hence the tribunal set aside the impugned order of punishment and directed to reinstate the claimant respondent without any backwages.? Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred.

Shri S.K.Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner? while assailing the impugned order of removal failed to draw attention of this Court towards any material on record which may establish that the Tribunal had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.? He could not draw the attention of this Court towards any proposition of law while assailing the tribunal''s judgment.

The factual as well as legal proposition dealt with by the Tribunal seems to be based on sound appreciation of law.? The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal on merit does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

However, it has been stated that while setting aside the order of removal, the Tribunal should have been given liberty to proceed afresh.? Now it has been settled by Hon''ble Supreme Court that ordinarily while setting aside the order of punishment on account of violation of principle of natural justice liberty should be given to disciplinary authority to proceed afresh.

In view of above, while upholding the Tribunal''s judgment on merit, we modify the same and give liberty to the petitioner to proceed afresh in accordance with law.? In case, petitioner is advised to proceed afresh, then let a fresh inquiry be held in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months.? Petitioner shall restore the claimant respondent in service with due salary in the light of Tribunal''s judgment forthwith.

Subject to above, writ petition is disposed of finally.