IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Appeal No. 01 of 2010 (Old No. 2348 of 1999) 1. P.P.Pandey, Regional Manager, U.P.State Road, Transport Corporation, Dehradun 2. Shri Desh Deepak Verma, U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Terhi Kothi, Lucknow 3. Shri Aushan Giri, Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Dehradun ..................... .... Appellants Versus 1. State Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow 2. Shri Masad Raza Zaidi S/o Shri Habibul Hasan, R/o Village B hailia, P.O Hasandara, District Barabanki ………...........Respondents Shri Ramji Srivastava and Ashish Joshi, advocates, present for the appellants None present for the respondent even after sufficient service with notices issued by this court after this appeal is transferred from Allahabad High Court. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. 2 Heard learned Counsel for the appellants (2) This appeal, preferred under section 5-A(c) of U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, read with section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, is directed against the order dated 21.07.1999 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow (for short PST) in Contempt Petition No. 340 of 1998. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. (4) Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition no. 269/V/1991 was filed by respondent Masad Raza Zaidi before PST, Lucknow, challenging the order dated 02.06.1990 passed against him, removing him from the service. The respondent had further challenged order dated 25.01.1991 passed by the departmental appellate authority whereby the order of punishment stood affirmed. PST Lucknow after hearing the parties vide its order dated 23.04.1998 allowed the claim petition and quashed the orders dated 02.06.1990 and 25.01.1991. However, the Tribunal made it clear that the employer (present appellant) were at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry as per the rules and pass fresh orders. The respondent no.2 Masad Raza Zaidi filed a 3 contempt petition no. 340 of 1998 before PST, Lucknow, complaining that the authority have not complied with the order dated 23.04.1998. The present appellants were impleaded by names as respondents in said contempt petition. They pleaded before the Tribunal that they have complied with the order and the respondent no.2 Shri Zaidi is regularly being paid subsistence allowance, and fresh inquiry is on. In this connection reliance was placed on order of December 1998, passed by the Regional Manager of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. However the tribunal held that authority have not complied the order passed by it on 23.4.1998, as formally the order of punishment has not been withdrawn/quashed by the authority. Hence this appeal, which is received by this court after creation of State of Uttarakhand under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the evidence on record, we find that the Tribunal has taken erroneous view that compliance of order dated 23.04.1998 was not made. In our view, when the order of punishment had already been quashed by the Tribunal, the employer was not required to formally withdraw the punishment order or quash it, as the order of punishment challenged in the claim petition was a non est 4 order. (6) For the reasons as discussed above and in the above facts and circumstances we are of the view, that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.1999 passed by the Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow, in contempt petition no. 340 of 1998, is hereby set aside. In view of the compliance of the order dated 23.04.1998, by the authority concerned, the contempt petition filed by respondent no.2 Shri Masad Raza Zaidi stands dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 26.08.2010 N.P