S. RAFAT ALAM, J. ( 1 ) IN the Instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow dated 11. 2. 1993 whereby the claim petition of respondent No. 1 against the order of his dismissal from service and recovery has been allowed. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 3 ) WHEN this matter was taken up as fresh on 20. 7. 1993 before another Bench of this Court, the following interim order was passed : "respondent No. 1 shall be served by the office in ordinary course and petitioner shall also take steps to serve respondent No. 1. Office shall do the needful in this regard. Respondent No. 2 need not be served. List for admission after four weeks. The order of recovery of arrears of wages of the respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed provided respondent No. 1 is reinstated by the petitioner within one month and paid his salary which is attached to his post for future regularly to the extent indicated above, the impugned order of respondent No. 2 is stayed. " Therefore, the operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to reinstatement of respondent No. 1 within one month and on payment of salary regularly. However, the payment of arrears of salary of respondent No. 1 was stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state as to whether the aforesaid order of this Court has been carried out by the petitioner or not. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents although Sri D. C. Srivastava, advocate, has filed power and has also filed counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit. Though in the absence of compliance of this Courts earlier order dated 20,7. 1993, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, but we have proceeded to hear out the matter and accordingly perused the impugned order. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is an instrumentality of the State Government created under the provisions of the U. P. Area Development Act, 1976. 1993, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, but we have proceeded to hear out the matter and accordingly perused the impugned order. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is an instrumentality of the State Government created under the provisions of the U. P. Area Development Act, 1976. The respondent No. 1 was working as Junior Clerk in ram Ganga Command Workshop Tractor Repairs at Kisan Nagar, Pakri, Kanpur and during his posting in Ram Ganga Command Workshop, he was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in respect of several charges, a copy of the charge-sheet is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer after necessary enquiry submitted his report with the finding that all the charges have duly been proved against respondent No. 1. Thereafter, by order dated 17. 10. 1981 he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, he challenged the order of dismissal before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal by filing claim Petition No. 299/t/i/1985. The learned Tribunal having heard the parties by the impugned order set aside the order of removal and ordered that the respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances. It was further ordered that the arrear amount should be paid within three months from the date of the order. However, the appointing authority was given liberty to consider the report of the Enquiry Officer independently without taking into account any extraneous material and to pass order according to law. It is surprising that the petitioner being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, Instead of passing a fresh order in terms of the liberty given by the Tribunal, has chosen to challenge the order before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which we do not appreciate in the facts of the case. ( 5 ) IT appears from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11. 2. 1993 that mainly four points were urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 while assailing the order of dismissal, viz. ( 5 ) IT appears from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11. 2. 1993 that mainly four points were urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 while assailing the order of dismissal, viz. , (i) that the copies of documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him-inspite of demand ; (ii) that the order of suspension could not have been passed by the Secretary, Ram ganga Command Area Development Authority (for short the Authority) as he was not his appointing authority ; (iii) that the charges have not been proved against him ; and (iv) that the appointing authority did not apply its mind independently to the reports submitted by the enquiry Officer and also in respect of the punishment awarded to the petitioner, hence the order of termination is vitiated. ( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal having heard both the sides, found the allegation, that the documents were not supplied and respondent No. 1 was not afforded full opportunity to defend the charges, as incorrect and without any substance, hence rejected the first contention. As regards the second contention, it was found that the power of suspension was delegated to the Secretary of the authority and, therefore, the suspension of respondent No. 1 was within jurisdiction. In respect of third contention that the charges have not been proved, the learned Tribunal found that all the charges against respondent No. 1 were fully proved except the Charge No. 1 as he was not the purchasing Officer and, therefore, this charge cannot be said to have been proved against respondent No. 1. In respect of third contention that the charges have not been proved, the learned Tribunal found that all the charges against respondent No. 1 were fully proved except the Charge No. 1 as he was not the purchasing Officer and, therefore, this charge cannot be said to have been proved against respondent No. 1. However, while considering the fourth contention, it was found that the report of the Enquiry Officer was first sent to the Secretary of the Authority, who in the last paragraph of his noting, recommended that if the Chairman/administrator, who is the appointing authority of respondent No. 1, agrees, the order of dismissal of Sri Raj Pal Singh, respondent No. 1 may be put up before him for signature, and therefore, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that this simply shows that the appointing authority did not apply her own mind directly, but in this matter she was assisted by the Secretary and, therefore, the appointing authority acted on extraneous comments made by the Secretary of the Authority and taking into consideration those comments, she arrived to the conclusion that the charges have been proved, which has vitiated the order of dismissal passed against respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal thus, allowed the claim petition of respondent No. 1 and set aside the order dismissing him from service only on the ground that the appointing authority while awarding punishment, taking aid of extraneous comments of the Secretary of the Authority which made the order illegal. However, the learned tribunal gave liberty to the appointing authority, i. e. , Chairman/ Administrator to consider the report of the Enquiry Officer and then pass order according to law. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Tribunal although found that all the charges except Charge No. 1 is proved against respondent No. 1, inspite of that set aside the order of dismissal on the assumption that the Chairman/administrator is the appointing authority of respondent No. 1 and not the Secretary of the Authority. He further submitted that respondent no. 1 was appointed by the Secretary of the Authority who is the appointing authority in respect of the post held by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the learned Tribunal fell in error in arriving to the conclusion that the appointing authority did not apply his independent mind. No other point has been urged. He further submitted that respondent no. 1 was appointed by the Secretary of the Authority who is the appointing authority in respect of the post held by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the learned Tribunal fell in error in arriving to the conclusion that the appointing authority did not apply his independent mind. No other point has been urged. ( 8 ) WE have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The appointment letter of respondent No. 1 is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition from a perusal of which it appears that on account of merger of Ram Ganga Command Area Development Corporation to ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Clerk by the Chairman/administrator of the Ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority vide letter dated 6. 5. 1977. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed by the chairman/administrator and not by the Secretary of the Authority. Besides that, even the secretary of the Authority in the last paragraph of his note to the Chairman/administrator on the enquiry report (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), has mentioned that the Chairman/administrator is the appointing authority of Sri Raj Pal Singh (respondent No. 1) and, therefore, the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service may be passed under his signature. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Secretary of the Authority is the appointing authority of respondent No. 1 has no merit. ( 9 ) IN the matter of disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority is the sole Judge and, therefore, he has to apply his mind Independently on the report submitted by the enquiry officer and the material or evidence which has come during departmental proceeding upon which he could either accept the report and award punishment commensurate with the charges or to differ with that by recording reasons but, while taking decision, he cannot take aid of any extraneous material in any form such as opinion or note of other authority in respect of the charges and finding of the enquiry officer. Our above view also finds support from a judgment of the Honble supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Padam Chand Jain, 1995 SCC (Lands) 1011. Our above view also finds support from a judgment of the Honble supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Padam Chand Jain, 1995 SCC (Lands) 1011. In that case, the disciplinary authority had relied on the comments invited by him and offered by an Accounts Officer and thereafter terminated the service of the respondent which was challenged in a writ proceeding before the High Court. The High Court quashed the order, inter alia, on the ground that the decision of the Managing Director was vitiated on account of the fact that it was influenced by some extraneous material. The Honble supreme Court approving the view taken by the High Court directed the disciplinary authority to decide the matter afresh only on the basis of the relevant material excluding from consideration the extraneous material in the form of adverse comments of the Accounts Officer. ( 10 ) IN the case in hand, the disciplinary authority has based his opinion in respect of the charges and punishment not only on the enquiry report but also on the note submitted by the Secretary. The Secretary in its note said that the Chairman-cum-Administrator is the appointing authority of sri Raj Pal Singh (respondent) and, therefore, if he agrees, order of dismissal may be passed against him and on that note the Chairman-cum-Administrator ordered that in view of the enquiry report and the note of the Secretary dated 1. 10. 1981, it is clear that the respondent is guilty of dereliction of duty and keeping in view the enquiry report and note of the Secretary, he should be dismissed from service. Therefore, it is apparent that he did not apply his independent mind while examining the enquiry report and evidence, which had come during the proceeding and also on the question of punishment, but swayed by the opinion of the Secretary. Therefore, it is apparent that he did not apply his independent mind while examining the enquiry report and evidence, which had come during the proceeding and also on the question of punishment, but swayed by the opinion of the Secretary. It is the duty and function of the appointing authority to satisfy that the charges stands proved on the material which has come during the enquiry and thereafter only upon consideration of the report shall consider what punishment should be imposed vis-a-vis the charges which in the case in hand has not been followed and thus, the order is vitiated on account of the fact that he was Influenced by extraneous material, which was given by the Secretary in the form of note, which was virtually endorsed by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Service Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of termination with the liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after applying his mind. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to pass fresh order only on the basis of the relevant material excluding the extraneous material and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. .