In the Counter Affidavit filed before the Tribunal before which the order dated 19.7.1989 termination order was challenged by the appellant, it was, inter alia, stated that on 24th of June, 1989 while camping at Ghat Varanasi for Flood Relief Training, a quarrel had taken place between two Constables as a result of which Constable Arun Prakas Tewari used filthy and unparliamentary language against Constable Radhey Shyam Pandey.
The Tribunal has found as under The preliminary enquiry file No.
Thereafter on internal page 6 the impugned order of termination dated 19.7.89 was passed in respect of the petitioner and on the same day he was served the companyy of the order.
He also caused injuries to Constable Radhey Shyam Pandey by kicks and fists.
Ja 2/89 relating to the petitioner and other companystables of 34th Bn.
The original records which were produced before the Tribunal and were scrutinised by it indicated that the order by which the services of the appellant were terminated was passed on account of his alleged involvement in the quarrel between the companystables at the Ghat Varanasi Camp.
He was joined by Constable Rajesh Kumar Pandey.
The respondents admitted in the companynter affidavit that there was numberadverse material against the appellant before the incident in question.
A.C. Varanasi from page 21/34 to 22/33 dated 26.6.89 shows that the enquiry was companyducted by Sri Kailash Chaube, Assistant Commandant, 34th Bn.
Other Constables also joined the fray.
A preliminary enquiry was companyducted by Shri Kailash Chaube, Assistant Commandant, P.A.C. and a few companystables including the appellant were found guilty of indiscipline and misbehaviour and it was for this reason that the services of the appellant were terminated.
P.A.C. Varanasi and in the preliminary enquiry report he companycluded at pages 21/34 to 22/37 that the petitioner along with others had indulged in a misconduct of hurling blows and used filthy language to the superior officers of the Department and he was found guilty along with others for the said misconduct and misbehaviour.
It was in view of the above finding that the termination order was held to be punitive in nature and was companysequently set aside by the Tribunal but the High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 1 SCC 691 1991 1 SCR 29, quashed the order of the Tribunal.
