JUDGMENT Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Through this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 21.7.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal"). 3. While allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal has granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to consider the matter on the basis of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and then pass a fresh punishment order without being influenced by any recommendation made by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated 5.3.2014. 4. The sole ground on which the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the claim petition is that the enquiry officer had made a recommendation for awarding punishment, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority was vitiated in the eye of law as the enquiry officer was not competent to make any recommendation for awarding punishment. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance upon Rule 14 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 wherein power to make recommendation has been given to the enquiry officer, but separately. 6. Be that as it may, since liberty has already been granted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.