Ashok Pal Singh, J.— 1. We have heard Sri Prafulla Yadav, learned standing counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri I. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the claimant respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the State against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2006, passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow, reviewing its earlier judgment whereby, the claim petition preferred by the claimant respondent, was dismissed. Brief matrix of the present case is discussed hereinafter: 3. The claimant respondent was appointed as Police Constable in July, 1979. It is alleged that his work and conduct was satisfactory and no adverse entry was communicated to him during the service period. In 1986, the claimant respondent proceeded on 10 days sanctioned leave with effect from 28.12.1986. While reaching home, he found his wife ill and it is alleged that he remain busy in her treatment. According to pleading on record, the petitioner himself fell seriously ill on 26.2.1987 and remained under treatment till 15.12.1987. He approached the office to resume duty on 20.12.1987 along with fitness certificate dated 16.12.1987. He performed duty upto 26.1.1988. Thereafter the claimant respondent proceeded on 5 days sanctioned casual leave from 17.1.1988 but again he fell ill due to which departmental proceeding was initiated against him in absentia in view of the provision of U.P. Police Regulations. 4. During the course of inquiry, the factum of absence from duty was proved by the statement of Sukhpal Singh, Reserve Inspector. After inquiry, the petitioner was served two show cause notices one dated 8.9.1988 and another dated 3/5.10.1988. In pursuance thereof, his services were dispensed with by the competent authority. The claimant respondent was dismissed from service. 5. According to counsel of the claimant respondent, the appeal preferred against the impugned order of dismissal before the D.I.G., was not decided in spite of reminders sent for the purpose. After waiting some time, the claimant respondent approached the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the claimant respondent stated that ''over stay' was not without reason. Under compelling circumstances, he was over stayed. It is stated before the Tribunal that Superintendent of Police could not have entrusted the inquiry to an officer subordinate to him under para 490 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Before the Tribunal, the claimant respondent stated that ''over stay' was not without reason. Under compelling circumstances, he was over stayed. It is stated before the Tribunal that Superintendent of Police could not have entrusted the inquiry to an officer subordinate to him under para 490 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The impugned order is not self speaking and is not in conformity with the provisions of para 490 (8) of the U.P. Police Regulations. It has further been pleaded before the Tribunal that the inquiry officer has not considered the factum with regard to serious illness of claimant respondents. It has further been pleaded that the departmental proceeding was held in absentia. 6. After exchange of affidavits and providing opportunity of hearing to parties, Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition for want of merit by the judgment and order dated 13.8.2003. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order, the claimant respondent preferred the Review Petition before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2005. 7. While assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, it has been vehemently argued by learned standing counsel Sri Prafulla Yadav, that the Tribunal has proceeded with de novo hearing of the case which is not permissible. 8. It is vehemently argued that every provisions contained in U.P. Police Regulations was considered by the earlier judgment of Tribunal and it was not open for the Tribunal while exercising power of review to reappreciate the evidence and record finding contrary to finding recorded by earlier judgment. 9. On the other hand, Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel defended the impugned judgment on three grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal has rejected the objection of the petitioner vide order dated 21.11.2005 recording a finding that the review is maintainable. Secondly, the provisions of para 493 (c) have not been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the case and thirdly, the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct. 10. Coming to first limb of argument that the Tribunal had rejected the objection of the petitioner State vide order dated 21.11.2005 with regard to maintainability of review petition and makes out a case of non-interference by this Court. 11. There appears to be no room of doubt that the objection raised by the petitioners was rejected by the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.11.2005. 11. There appears to be no room of doubt that the objection raised by the petitioners was rejected by the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.11.2005. While passing the order dated 21.11.2005 the Tribunal had made the following observations:- 9.We have gone through para-9 of the judgment under review. Regarding the provisions of Para 493 (c) of Police Regulations, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was not placed under suspension, therefore, there was no question of reinstating him under para-493 (c) of Police Regulations. It has been further added that the proceedings in the criminal court of law and the disciplinary proceedings are two different proceedings and therefore the Superintendent of Police was well within his power to subject the petitioner to face his departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act and there is no legal flaw in it. It appears that later part of para-493 (c) was ignored according to which the Superintendent of Police may refer the matter to the Dy. Inspector General of Police and ask for permission to try the accused departmently for such negligence or unfitness. For Departmental proceedings permission of the Inspector General of Police should have been obtained but this was not done. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. It is clearly legal mistake or the mistake of law and apparent on record and o n this ground by way of review the judgment and order dated 13.8.93 can be corrected. 10.We have also perused para-10 of the judgment under review in which the provisions of para-490 (6) and 490 (8) have been discussed in which there is no mistake or error which can be termed as error apparent on the face of record, and can afford ground for review. 11.That what have been mentioned above, the review petition is partly allowed. Accordingly judgment and order dated 13.8.03 is set aside. List the claim petition for final hearing on 9th December, 2005. _____________