HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7083 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for petitioners (State). He submits, under challenge is judgment and order dated 14th October, 2024 of the tribunal, by which claim petition of respondent no. 1 was allowed on the disciplinary proceeding orders set aside. He submits, there was an incident of maar-peet (fighting) resulting in death of a person. It happened on 3rd February, 2022. Complaint in that regard was made on the date itself. Specious plea of respondent no. 1 in the tribunal was his contention of complainant himself saying, there was talk of compromise and no information given resulting in delayed registration of FIR. This contention was not considered. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned advocate appears for respondent no. 1. He submits, the tribunal correctly found omission to consider his client's defence and non speaking orders made, for them to be set aside. No interference is warranted. 3. Paragraph 8 from impugned judgment and order is reproduced below. "8. It is worth mention here that these statements do not find place in the punishment order. Thought, the punishment order runes in as many as more than four pages but the pleas to these effect have not been discussed or elaborated by the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order, which makes the order unseasoned, non speaking and a bald one and also support the pleas taken by the petitioner that it has been passed on the basis of predetermined mind as well as without properly considering the explanation of the petitioner, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C., S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Singh, Neetu State Of Up And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Inspector, Prem Veer Singh Rana And Another .....Respondent(s) The tribunal proceeded to and set aside the orders made against respondent no. 1 upon finding no reasons were given. The tribunal did not restore the matter. 4. The tribunal itself has recorded in impugned judgment and order, there was this incident and one person was killed. A complaint as of date of incident was made. Then comes defence of respondent no. 1 based on statement of complainant that there was talk of compromise and no information given to explain delay in registering FIR. We being the writ court will not probe into the facts but it is a grave situation where there can be assertion of compromise upon a person having been killed, to stop if not delay investigation. The tribunal is the last fact finding forum. Impugned judgment and order is set aside and quashed. The claim petition is restored to the tribunal for probing and ascertaining whether contention of State is correct that there was on record a complaint filed on the date of occurrence. Certified copy of this order be forthwith communicated to the tribunal for State to seek issuance of notice and listing of the claim petition on the restoration. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. September 28, 2026 sailesh WRIA No. 7083 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad