JUDGMENT Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2015, by means of which, claim petition filed by respondent no.1 was allowed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. 2. The facts, in short, are that when respondent no.1 was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Mugalsarai, he disposed of two Assessment cases, one of M/s. Hanuman Industries on 27.9.2001 and 10.2.2003 and another of M/s. Garg Oil Mill on 23.12.2003. In respect of the aforesaid two cases, the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax issued a letter on 13.4.2006 to respondent no.1, when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Trade Tax Azamgarh, seeking explanation of respondent no.1. On 19.5.2006, the respondent no.1 submitted his explanation before the Joint Commissioner, narrating the entire facts and circumstances under which, respondent no.1 passed the assessment orders in respect of the aforesaid two firms. After receiving explanation from respondent no.1, the matter was referred to the government and after examining the matter as per rules, the order imposing minor punishment of censure entry was passed on 29.3.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent no.1, filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 10.3.2008. 3. The respondent no.1 thereafter approached the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by filing a Claim Petition No.1462 of 2007, challenging the punishment order as well as the appellate order. By means of order dated 30.1.2015, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order as well as appellate order. Hence this writ petition. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without considering the written statement filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondent no.1. He further submits that the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition mainly on the ground that the order of punishment is not a speaking order and there was no good ground before the disciplinary authority to impose punishment upon the respondent no.1, whereas the order has been passed following the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He also submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal merely points out the defect in the orders passed against the respondent no.1. He also submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal merely points out the defect in the orders passed against the respondent no.1. He further submits that if the Tribunal found that there was any defect in the order, then the matter ought to have been remanded to the concerned authority for conducting the enquiry from the stage defect was committed. But instead of doing so, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment awarded to respondent no.1 and also directed to give consequential benefits to the respondent no.1. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to the quashed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order, did not take into consideration the explanation submitted by the respondent no.1 and there was no material before the disciplinary authority to award punishment to respondent no.1. The Tribunal also found that since the respondent no.1 had retired four years back, therefore, there was no occasion to direct the petitioner to proceed afresh against him. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order and directed for giving consequential benefits to the respondent no.1, which were withheld because of the punishment order. 7. We have gone through the aforesaid order and we find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any manner. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.