HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 25349 of 2019 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition the State has challenged judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1587 of 2017; Udai Ver Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 3. Though, the writ petition was filed in 2019 notices have not been issued to the private respondent as yet, presumably because the query recorded in our order dated 17.09.2019 has remained unanswered by the petitioner. 4. The private respondent filed the aforesaid claim petition challenging an order of punishment dated 24.07.2017 by which minor punishment of censure and stoppage of one annual increment temporarily, for one year, had been imposed. The Tribunal has quashed the said punishment order with consequential service benefits on the ground that, in the inquiry, the private respondent was exonerated in respect of all the five charges and the Disciplinary Authority while issuing a show cause notice disagreeing with the same, did not furnish appropriate reasons as were required to be furnished. Secondly, while passing the order of punishment, charges/allegations which were not part of charge sheet, were taken into consideration. Proper consultation did not take place with the Public Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.P.W.D. .....Petitioner(s) Udai Veer Singh .....Respondent(s) Service Commission which was mandatory. For all these reasons punishment order was set-aside. 5. Having heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, although, he submitted that the Commission was consulted, even after taking it into consideration we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference, as, even after going through the show cause notice which was issued by the Disciplinary Authority we could not find proper discussion or disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer nor do we find reasons having been recorded as envisaged in Rule 9(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in respect of all the five charges and findings of the Inquiry Officer in this regard exonerating the private respondent. The private respondent was 59 years of age in 2017. We are now in 2025. For all these reasons, we decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 15, 2025 R.K.P. WRIA No. 25349 of 2019 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench