Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal dated 08.10.2009 by which the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the punishment order, appellate order and the revisional order against the petitioner in a matter of slack and unfair investigation after which he had submitted final report in a criminal case. The petitioner was awarded penalty of censure entry, and his integrity was withheld.
The petitioner has now alleged malafides and also submits that the punishment in view of the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 9th May, 2003 was predetermined. He has also challenged the order on merits.
We do not find that these grounds were pressed before the Tribunal. The petitioner may have raised these pleas in the claim petition but that he does not appear to have pressed them at the time of arguments. The judgment of the Tribunal would show that the petitioner pressed the claim petition only on the ground that the award of censure entry as well as withholding of integrity, amount to punishing him again for the same charge, and is case of double jeopardy.
The Tribunal has rightly held that the order withholding the integrity is an assessment recorded in the annual confidential record and is not a punishment, to be treated as double punishment along with censure entry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had pressed the grounds of malafides and had also argued the case in Tribunal on merits.
In case the petitioner had made submissions on merits as well as malafides, he has remedies available to file the review petition. The High Court does not ordinarily entertain the argument, which were neither pressed nor considered by the Tribunal.
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate review petition, to review the judgment of the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010 SP/