Court No. - 24 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1379 of 2008 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Excise Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Singh S/O Ram Pravesh Singh Petitioner Counsel :- Standing Counsel Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D K Singh,R.C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the State against the order
and judgment dated 25.3.2008 passed by the State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 413 of 2004 as contained in
Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the
impugned order is not permissible as the special adverse entry and
withholding of integrity cannot be given as a major punishment but failed
to consider that though it was mentioned as special adverse entry in the
head note, while it was in fact a censure entry awarded to the
respondent No.1, which is clear from the last line of the punishment
order and the integrity was also withheld after show cause notice, so
there was no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and order dated
25.3.2008.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that
there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal.
In D.P. Maheshwari Versus Delhi Administration and others
[(1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 293], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory
and it is not open for the Court to exercise jurisdiction of the Trial Court
or the Tribunals.
Further Hon’ble Apex Court in several decisions has held in explicit
words that there should be judicial restraint while interfering with the
finding of fact recorded by inferior court or Tribunal. The duty of the
Court is (a) to confine itself to the question of legality; (b) to decide
whether the decision-making authority exceeded its power; (c)
committee an error of law; (d) committed breach of the rules of natural
justice; and (e) reach a decision which no reasonable tribunal would
have reached; or (f) abused its powers.
The petitioner has failed to show any good ground to warrant
interference by this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner’s counsel
has failed to point out that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are
perverse or are not based on evidence on record. Accordingly, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010
Ajit/-