JUDGMENT Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. The petition filed by the State and its instrumentalities seeks to challenge the order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal dated 3 September 2013. The Tribunal, while accepting the contention of the first respondent that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice in the course of the disciplinary enquiry, has set aside the order of punishment but, left it open to the State to proceed ahead with the departmental proceedings afresh from the stage of receipt of the reply and to complete the enquiry within a period of four months. The Tribunal has also directed that the first respondent shall continue to remain under suspension and would be paid subsistence allowance subject to the outcome of the enquiry. 2. The charge against the first respondent was that, while working as a Junior Engineer in the Firozabad-Shikohabad Development Authority, he had issued a sanctioned plan of the building of two complainants by forging the signature of the Secretary of the Development Authority, without obtaining approval of the Vice Chairman and by taking illegal gratification. 3. During the course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer relied upon, inter alia, the statements of the two complainants and copies of the sanctioned plan. However, the admitted position, which is born out from the report of the Enquiry Officer, is that no witness was produced to prove the statements nor was the first respondent allowed an opportunity of cross examining the complainants. The first respondent had sought copies of the statements by his letter dated 2 December 2006, which were supplied to him on 5 December 2006. 4. The Tribunal has found fault with the disciplinary enquiry on the ground that the statements of the complainants were not proved and no witness was produced to prove the statements and to establish the allegations. 5. The allegation, which was made against the first respondent in the course of the disciplinary enquiry was serious, involving fabrication of the records of the Development Authority, while sanctioning the building plan for construction. In the course of the enquiry, reliance was sought to be placed on the statements of the complainants. The Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that those statements ought to have been proved by leading evidence of witnesses and by permitting cross examination of the witnesses. This opportunity was not given to the first respondent. In the course of the enquiry, reliance was sought to be placed on the statements of the complainants. The Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that those statements ought to have been proved by leading evidence of witnesses and by permitting cross examination of the witnesses. This opportunity was not given to the first respondent. Hence, there was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 6. The Tribunal, in the interest of fairness has, while setting aside the order of punishment, directed that the first respondent would continue to remain under suspension and that the disciplinary enquiry would re-commence from the stage of submission of the reply and may be concluded expeditiously, preferably within four months. The order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted and we see no reason to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. We deem it appropriate and, accordingly, extend the period fixed by the Tribunal for the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry by a further period of four months from today. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.