Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9382-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1669 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare And Another Respondent :- U.P. Public Services Tribunal Indira Bhawan Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Despite cautioning the Legal Department of the State to scrutinize the matters which are to be agitated before this Court having arisen out of the judgements/orders passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the State has not shown any worthwhile improvement towards a fair litigation policy as is the case at hand. 2. The Law Department of the State is once again directed to effectuate legal assistance on the formation of opinions regarding legal advice based on which the matters are taken up before this Court. 3. In the present case punishment of censure and stoppage of one increment for one year became a subject matter of litigation before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.882 of 2018. 4. Although the inquiry was set up for a major punishment but it culminated into a minor punishment as mentioned above. There was no challenge by the State against the punishment so imposed, meaning thereby, that the charges were not serious. The Tribunal having regard to the procedure followed in the inquiry proceedings has recorded a finding to the effect that the requisite procedure was not followed before imposition of the punishment. 5. It is on this premise that the order of punishment was set aside. 6. In the present writ petition instituted by the State, it is argued that once the order of punishment was set aside on technical grounds, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the disciplinary authority for proceeding afresh. 7. This is a proposition which has relevance in the matters of serious consequence. All the matters where punishment is a minor punishment and allegations are not serious and the state has also not assailed the punishment imposed being inadequate, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to come up before this Court against the judgment/order passed by the Tribunal setting aside such an order. It is this crucial aspect of the matter which ought to have been scrutinised by the Legal Department of the State for forming a sound opinion to maintain a healthy litigation policy between the State and its employees. Litigation in the courts of law by the State is at the cost of public money. The State has to show due responsibility towards appropriating public exchequer against state litigation. 8. We caution the Law Department of the State to be careful in future and not to invite a serious view on the scrutiny aspect of the cases. The order passed by this Court may be brought to the notice of the Legal Remembrancer of the State who shall issue necessary guidance to the State Law Officers concerned. 9. In the circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition lacking merit is accordingly rejected. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench