Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.1 by Sri Shrikant Mishra, Advocate, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Shrikant Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 28.3.2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 1243 of 2018 : Dr. Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the learned Tribunal, after considering the material evidence i.e. enquiry report, punishment order as well as appellate order, came to the conclusion that there is no material against the claimant/respondent no.1 herein which establishes that at that relevant time, he was found guilty of operating the Canteen in his personal interest, allowed the claim petition and quashed the punishment order as well as appellate order with all consequential benefits.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 28.3.2019 (supra) is reproduced as under :-
"bl rjg tkWp vf/kdkjh us ;kph dks viuh tkWp vk[;k esa bl ckr ds fy;s nks"kh ugha ik;k gS fd mlus mis{kkiw.kZ rjhds ls fdlh /kujkf'k dks tek djk;k cfYd tkWp vf/kdkjh us ;g fy[kk gS fd foxr 30 ekg ds canhj{kd fM;wVh jftLVj ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr vof/k esa 16 ekg eks0 ukftj canhj{kd dh fM;wVh dS.Vhu esa yxk;h x;h gS] tks bl canhj{kd rFkk izHkkjh v/kh{[email protected] dh Hkwfedk dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA ijUrq ;kph dh Hkwfedk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk ugh fn;k x;k vkSj u gh tkWp esa bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ fy;k x;k gSA n.Mkf/kdkjh us Hkh bl fcUnq ij dksbZ foospu ugh fd;k gS vkSj u gh tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp vk[;k ls fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vlgefr O;Dr dh gS vkSj n.Mkf/kdkjh us fcuk fdlh lk{; ds ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd dkjkiky ds :i esa dkjkxkj dh dS.Vhu dks viua laj{k.k esa v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ls euekus
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that sufficient prima facie material against the claimant/respondent no.1 has been found, therefore, the punishment order was passed by the departmental authority and the same was affirmed by the appellate authority but the learned Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid, erred in quashing the punishment order as well as appellate order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no.1 has drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which have been reproduced hereinabove and has submitted that as there was no material available against the claimant/respondent no.1 nor in enquiry, any of the witness had ever made allegations against the claimant, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On due consideration so also the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any legal error in passing the impugned order.
8. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.