JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 343 of 2006. By means of which the removal order passed against the petitioner has been quashed. The Tribunal further proceeded to award lesser punishment in the form of stoppage of increment along with back wages. The said order has been put to challenge before this Court by way of present petition. 3. The petitioner who was proceeded departmentally in regard to the charge of bigamy and was subjected to departmental inquiry. During the course of departmental inquiry, the charge of bigamy was not found to be proved against the petitioner. In the departmental inquiry, no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and ex-parte inquiry was conducted. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 03.05.1996 was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation in respect of the charge of bigamy, but the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied along with show cause notice. The punishment order was finally passed on 04.06.1996 removing the petitioner from service. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said order which was rejected vide order dated 31.5.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision against the appellate order which too was rejected on 30.12.2004. The petitioner, in the meantime, filed Writ Petition No. 41772 of 1996 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 04.02.2005 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Public Services Tribunal. The State Public Services Tribunal after exchange of the pleadings came to the conclusion that the charge of bigamy was not established against the petitioner and proceeded to allow the claim petition. The order passed by the Tribunal was further challenged by way of review petition. The review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2013. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed immediately before this court. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal while hearing the claim petition came to the conclusion that the charge of bigamy was not established and proceeded to quash the order of the removal, but the Tribunal simultaneously imposed some other punishment in the form of stoppage of increment on account of non-satisfactory service. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal while hearing the claim petition came to the conclusion that the charge of bigamy was not established and proceeded to quash the order of the removal, but the Tribunal simultaneously imposed some other punishment in the form of stoppage of increment on account of non-satisfactory service. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded some other punishment contrary to the law. Once the Tribunal was considering the merit and demerit of the punishment order in the light of the law and evidence on record, no other punishment could have been awarded by the Tribunal substituting the punishment of removal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation; [ 2013 (31) LCD 1001 ]. 7. The learned standing counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has not worked, therefore, he was not entitled for back wages. He has also submitted that the work and conduct of petitioner was not satisfactory during the said period and that is why the increments were also stopped by the Tribunal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Before the Tribunal, the removal order was put to challenge by the petitioner. The Tribunal was considering the validity of the removal order on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge of bigamy was not established against the petitioner and on the aforesaid reasoning the Tribunal proceeded to quash the punishment order. After quashing the punishment order, the Tribunal further proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not entitled for any back wages as he has not performed any work during the said period. The Tribunal further held that since the petitioner has not worked on the post in question, he would not be earning any increment in law. The earning of increment is dependent upon the satisfactory work of the person concerned. The petitioner has not worked during the said period. The Tribunal further held that since the petitioner has not worked on the post in question, he would not be earning any increment in law. The earning of increment is dependent upon the satisfactory work of the person concerned. The petitioner has not worked during the said period. If the petitioner has not worked during the said period, then stoppage of increment could not be a correct approach in law by the Tribunal and thereby giving the reasoning that the petitioner has not worked on the said post, therefore, he would not be entitled to any increment. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) has tried to convey that once the order has been declared void the petitioner would be entitled to continuity in service. The aforesaid proposition cannot be doubted in any manner, but we have to see as to whether the stoppage of increment by the Tribunal was justified in law. The Tribunal was not adjudicating anything in respect of the grant of increment, the Tribunal was only adjudicating in respect of the punishment order of removal. The punishment order has been quashed by the Tribunal. The power to award back wages or not was within the domain of the Tribunal, to that extent the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with and we agree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner would not be entitled for any back wages as he has not worked during that period, but we are not in agreement with the latter part of the finding that the petitioner would not be entitled for any increment during the aforesaid period as it amounts to award of punishment which is not contemplated in law and the said order could not have been passed by the Tribunal. Since the punishment order of removal was quashed by the Tribunal, it means that the petitioner is to be treated as continuing in service and for that period his service shall be treated as satisfactory and he would be entitled for increment during the said period. Therefore, we set-aside that part of the order by which stoppage of increments has been ordered by the Tribunal. The rest of the order of the Tribunal is maintained. 11. The writ petition is partly allowed.