JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, Daya Shankar Tripathi, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ziauddin Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 6.7.2017 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 499 of 2006 (Abdul Kalam Azad v. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited and another). 3. Facts of the present case, in brief, are to the effect that respondent No. 1/claimant Abdul Kalam Azad while working on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I in Road Construction Unit, Azamgarh of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') was suspended by means of the order dated 7.6.2005. 4. On 4.7.2005, a charge sheet has been served to the respondent No. 1/claimant, to which he submitted his reply on 28.7.2005. 5. On 10.10.2005, Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Punishing Authority. Thereafter, the Punishing Authority has issued a show cause notice to the respondent No. 1/claimant on 17.11.2005, to which he submitted his reply on 28.11.2005. 6. By an order dated 20.2.2006, the Punishing Authority has awarded punishment to the respondent No. 1/claimant thereby dismissing him from services as well as directed for recovery of sum of Rs. 30,800/- from the respondent No. 1/claimant. Order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Punishing Authority has been challenged by filing Claim Petition No. 499 of 2006 (Abdul Kalam Azad v. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation and another) before the Tribunal. During the pendency of said claim petition, respondent No. 1/claimant Abdul Kalam Azad retired from services. 7. By an order dated 6.7.2017, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and set aside the order dated 20.2.2006 and has further directed that the claimant is entitled for all consequential benefits since the date of dismissal till the date of passing of order within a period of four months. Order dated 6.7.2017 has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 8. Order dated 6.7.2017 has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 8. One of the argument raised by Sri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that in the present case the Tribunal has considered and set aside the punishment order in view of the provisions as provided under Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, however the said Rule does not apply to a case of Corporation and the Rule which governs the field of Corporation is Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, as framed by the Corporation and he further submitted that even the punishment order dated 20.2.2006 has been passed by the Competent Authority/Managing Director of the Corporation under the said Rule. So in view of the above said facts, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction, which is liable to be set aside. 9. Sri Ziauddin Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant does not dispute the said fact. However, he submitted that no illegality has been done by the Tribunal in proceeding to decide the controversy by invoking the provisions as provided under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. So there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No. 1/claimant Abdul Kalam Azad was an employee of the Corporation and during the tenure of his service, he was served a charge sheet and thereafter he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal and during the pendency of claim petition he retired from services. Further, it is crystal clear that the employees who are working in the Corporation are governed under the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and in the present case the punishment order dated 20.2.2006 has been passed by the Director General of the Corporation under said Rule. 12. Further, it is crystal clear that the employees who are working in the Corporation are governed under the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and in the present case the punishment order dated 20.2.2006 has been passed by the Director General of the Corporation under said Rule. 12. In view of the said fact, the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby proceeding to decide the controversy which is involved before him under the provisions known as Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law because it is well settled legal principles of law that if a particular mode is provided to do a particular thing then the same shall be done in the said manner (See. Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 ; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others AIR 1963 SC 1077 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and other AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295 ; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another v. Taluk Land Board and others AIR 1979 SC 1573 ; State of Bihar and others v. J.A.C. Saldanna and others AIR 1980 SC 326 ; A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1986 SC 3160; State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna 1995 (1) SCC 156 .) 13. Moreover Sri Ziauddin Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant has agreed that the order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter in issue within a time frame as fixed by this Court as per the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.7.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 499 of 2006 (Abdul Kalam Azad v. Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation and another) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as per provisions of Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, after giving opportunity of hearing to parties within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.