Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral):- The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the respond­ent no.1 Rishipal Singh was appointed as a Constable in U.P. Police in the year 1980 and, at the relevant point of time, was posted at Lansdown in Pauri Garhwal, which is now in Uttarakhand. During his posting at Lansdown, the re­spondent no.1 was deputed at Police Sta­tion Laxman Jhula and during the duty hours, the said respondent went home without informing the department and, in this manner, the respondent remained on unauthorised leave from 13th July, 1997 to 17th October, 1997. Upon joining his duty, the disciplinary authority issued a chargesheet and, without waiting for an enquiry, dismissed the respondent from the services by an order of 30th March, 1998. The said respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 30th October, 1998, directing reinstatement in service and further directed the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law. 2. Pursuant to the remand order, the disciplinary authority appointed an en­quiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry officer gave notices and an oppor­tunity to the respondent to appear and place his defence. It is alleged that the respondent used to appear before the en­quiry officer off and on and, in this man­ner, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the said respondent. The disciplinary author­ity considered the enquiry report and ac­cepted the finding and, based on the said finding, issued a notice to the respondent on 7th January, 2000 to show cause as to why an order of punishment, namely, dismissal from the services should not be passed. The said respondent did not sub­mit any reply and, accordingly, the disci­plinary authority, after considering the past misconduct, issued an order dated 21st January, 2000 dismissing the respondent from service. The said respondent pre­ferred an appeal, which was dismissed and thereafter, preferred a revision, which was also dismissed. 3. The respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed a claim pe­tition before the Public Services Tribunal. The Public Services Tribunal, by its order dated 25th May, 2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal direct­ing reinstatement with 50% backwages. 4. The State Government, being ag­grieved by the order of the Tribunal, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The Public Services Tribunal, by its order dated 25th May, 2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal direct­ing reinstatement with 50% backwages. 4. The State Government, being ag­grieved by the order of the Tribunal, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The Tribunal in its order found that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice and that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the said respondent. The Tri­bunal further found that the disciplinary authority had passed the order of dis­missal, after considering the past conduct which could not be done in view of the decision in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana SLR 1999 (2) 320, wherein it was held that a punishment awarded for earlier absence of an employee could not be the subject matter of the enquiry nor could the employee be. dismissed from service. In the light of the aforesaid, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the re­spondent with 50% backwages. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opin­ion that the Tribunal committed an error in reinstating the respondent with 50% backwages. The moment the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice and that proper opportu­nity to defend was not afforded to the re­spondent, the Tribunal should have al­lowed the claim petition and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to com­plete the enquiry proceedings from that stage onwards, namely, from the stage when the respondent was not provided sufficient opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. This view of ours is in con­sonance with the principle enunciated by a majority decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Di­rector, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC1074, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "7.(v)................. Where after fol­lowing the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct rein­statement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to pro­ceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and con­tinuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. Where after fol­lowing the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct rein­statement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to pro­ceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and con­tinuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. -The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstate­ment if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceed­ings and depending on the final out­come. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled." 7. Consequently, on this short ground, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is set aside. This Court is of the opinion that in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the matter has to be sent back to the dis­ciplinary authority to complete the enquiry proceedings afresh, after providing full op­portunity to the respondent no.1. We also, however, observe that the Tribunal's find­ing while considering the past misconduct is incorrect and the decision of Satpal Singh's case is not applicable in the instant case. The Court is of the opinion that the past misconduct of an employee can be considered and can be seen as a mitigating factor while considering the proposed punishment. In the light of the aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted again to the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer and conclude the enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent to defend himself. The enquiry shall be completed within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and final orders will be passed by the disciplinary authority within a month thereafter. During the enquiry pro­ceedings, the respondent shall be treated as a suspended employee and would be paid his suspension allowance. The enquiry shall be completed within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and final orders will be passed by the disciplinary authority within a month thereafter. During the enquiry pro­ceedings, the respondent shall be treated as a suspended employee and would be paid his suspension allowance. The order for the wages for the period from the date of termination till the conclusion of the enquiry would be passed by the discipli­nary authority when final orders are passed after conclusion of the enquiry.