Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40902-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2601 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of Up And Another Respondent :- Ram Karan Yadav And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tej Bhanu Pandey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. This petition has been filed by the State challenging an order passed by the Public Service Tribunal, U.P. in Claim Petition No. 1695 of 2023, whereby the claim of the respondent no.1 has been allowed. It transpires that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent no.1 on certain charges, which ultimately led to passing of an order of punishment against the respondent no.1 on 2.7.2020. This order was challenged by the respondent no.1 in earlier Claim Petition No. 1713 of 2020. The Tribunal quashed the order of punishment on the ground that the inquiry itself was not conducted in accordance with law. Liberty was given to the employer- petitioner to conduct fresh inquiry, within a period of six months. This order of the Tribunal is passed on 10.12.2021. Operative portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereinafter: "आददश ननदरश ययनचकय सववकयर कक जयतव हह। आललचय आददश नदनयननकत 02.07.2020 ( सनलगक सन०-1) आददश नदनयननकत 28.07.2020 ( सनलगक सन०-2) तथय आददश नदनयननकत 16.10.2020 ( सनलगक सन०-3) ननरसत नकयद जयतद हह। नवपकवगण पकरण मम पपनन जयनच कर अगदतर कययरवयहव नकयद जयनद कद ललयद सवतनत हह। यनद नवपकवगण पपनन जयनच कक कययरवयहव कय ननणरय कर लदतद हह तल वद उसद इस ननणरय कक सतयपनतललनप पयप हलनद कद छन मयह कद अनदर पपणर करनय सपनननशत करम। उभय पक वयद वयय सवयन वहन करमगद।" It is admitted on record that fresh inquiry was not conducted by the employer-State within the time allowed by the Tribunal. It is after one and half years that the employer again commenced the disciplinary proceedings without seeking any extension of time. The proceedings were kept pending. It is at this stage that the claim of the respondent for grant of second promotional pay-scale fell for consideration. The authority denied such benefit on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent. Thus aggrieved the respondents approached the Tribunal for necessary relief. The Tribunal having examined the matter, has come to the conclusion that on the date of consideration of application for grant of second promotional pay-scale, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. Even otherwise, the subsequent proceedings initiated were in teeth of the previous adjudication made by the Tribunal, inasmuch as liberty granted to hold inquiry within six months was not availed nor any extension was allowed. It is for this reason that the Tribunal has set aside the impugned action and has issued necessary directions for grant of second promotional pay-scale to the respondent no. 1. Learned Standing Counsel argues that the order passed by the Tribunal on 10.12.2021 was actually never served upon the employer. We are not impressed by such arguments, inasmuch as the employer-State was already represented before the Public Service Tribunal and the order of 10.12.2021 was passed in presence of the representative of the State. Even otherwise, if there existed sufficient circumstances for not proceeding with the fresh inquiry within a period of six months, the proper course available to the State was to move an appropriate application for extension of time before the Tribunal. No such steps were taken. The order of the Tribunal was not challenged and has attained finality. The withholding of second promotional pay-scale on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, therefore, has not been approved by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find substance in the view taken by the Tribunal, inasmuch as once the earlier inquiry was set aside with liberty given to the State to conduct fresh inquiry within six months, either such inquiry ought to have been concluded within such period or an appropriate application ought to have been made for grant of extension of time to conduct such inquiry. This is particularly so as the petitioner- employer was otherwise represented before the Tribunal. The failure on the part of the petitioner-State to act in terms of the order of the Tribunal has thus been construed as an impermissible act in law, and we find no error in such view of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, direction issued to the State to release the second promotional pay-scale to the respondent no. 1 suffers from no error. The respondent no.1 has otherwise retired on 31.01.2022. To allow the disciplinary proceedings to be continued contrary to the orders of the Tribunal in the facts of the present case, would otherwise cause uncalled for harassment and prejudice to him. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Noman Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad