JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri Manish Mishra, counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by State of U.P. and it authorities assailing judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) allowing Claim Petition No. 1007 of 2002. Order of punishment of dismissal dated 8.3.2002 and appellate and revisional orders dated 5.7.2002 have been set aside by Tribunal. 3. We find that charge-sheet was issued to claimant-respondent on 3.2.2002 levelling following charge: ^^lsukuk;d] 28oha okfguh ihŒ,ŒlhŒ bVkok ds vkns'k la[;k ihŒ,QŒ2@2002 fnukad 03-02-2002 }kjk vkj{kh 36206 xksiky flag ds fo:} fuEu vkjksi ds lEcU/k esa ;g foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh eq> ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks vkcafVr dh xbZ%& o"kZ 2001 esa vki 28oha okfguh ihŒ,ŒlhŒ bVkok ds ^^,p** ny esa vkj{kh ds in ij fu;qDr Fks] vkSj okfguh eq[;ky; ij Fks] rks fnukad 08-12- 2001 ls 6 fnol vkdkfled vodk'k ij jokuk gq, Fks le; ls u vkdj vki fnukad 14-12-2001 ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA bl izdkj iqfyl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa ds mYya?ku esa foHkkxh; vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk rFkk drZO;ikyu ds izfr vdeZ.;rk ,oa mnklhurk ds nks"kh gSA** Vide Order Number : P.F.2/2002 dated 3.2.2002 of Senanayak, 28th Battalion P.A.C., regarding following charge against Constable 36206 Gopal Singh, this departmental proceeding has been entrusted to me- the Presiding Officer : In the year 2001, you were posted in ‘’H’ Dal (Company) of 28th Battalion P.A.C., Etawah and were at Battalion Headquarter then on 8.12.2001 you had proceeded for casual leave of 06 days and you did not return on time rather since 14.12.2001 you are absent unauthorizedly. Thus you are guilty of disobeying the departmental orders and lethargy & dereliction towards duties in violation of directions contained in Section 29 of Police Act.” (English translation by Court) 4. Thus you are guilty of disobeying the departmental orders and lethargy & dereliction towards duties in violation of directions contained in Section 29 of Police Act.” (English translation by Court) 4. However, Enquiry Officer while submitting its report holding charge proved included certain other aspects which were not even part of charge, as is evident from following part of enquiry report: ^^i=koyh ij miyC/k vkjksih vkj{kh ds lsok vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k rks ik;k fd vkj{kh dks 21 ckj esa 431 fnu fcuk osru vodk'k Hkh Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA vkj{kh dks mlds ek= 15 lky ds lsok dky esa 11 nq"pfj= ys[k iznku fd;s x;s gS rFkk 9 ckj vkns'k d{k esa Hkh nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] blds vykok vkj{kh dks o"kZ 1998 esa fuyfEcr Hkh fd;k x;k gS rFkk o"kZ 2001 esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dj 3 o"kZ ds fy;s osruo`f} ls oafNr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkjksih vkj{kh dks lq/kkj gsrq vko';drk ls vf/kd volj Hkh fn;s x;s gS] ijUrq vkj{kh esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha gqvk gSA ,sls dk;ksZ ls vuq'kkflr ihŒ,ŒlhŒ cy dh Nfo /kwfey gksrh gS vksj bldk nq"izHkko vU; deZpkfj;ksa ij iM+rk gSA** “Perused the service records of the charged Constable available on record then found that the Constable has been granted 431 days’ leave without pay in 21 parts. In mere 15 years’ service period of the Constable, he has been awarded 11 adverse character remarks and 09 times he has been punished in the order room too. Besides it, the Constable has also been suspended in the year 1998 and in the year 2001 his annual increment has been stopped for 03 years in consequence of a departmental proceeding. Thus more than enough opportunities have also been accorded to the charged Constable for improvement/betterment but no improvement has been observed in the Constable. From such acts, the image of disciplined Force P.A.C. is maligned and it adversely impacts other employees.” (English translation by Court) 5. Accepting the said enquiry report and taking into account earlier alleged misconducts of claimant-respondent and earlier punishments which were not part of charge-sheet, punishment order was passed and appeal and revision were dismissed. Tribunal has therefore, set aside order of punishment. 6. Accepting the said enquiry report and taking into account earlier alleged misconducts of claimant-respondent and earlier punishments which were not part of charge-sheet, punishment order was passed and appeal and revision were dismissed. Tribunal has therefore, set aside order of punishment. 6. It is well-settled that any act of misconduct or matter which is not subject-matter of charge-sheet cannot be taken into account to punish Government servant as that amount to punishment without giving opportunity in respect to those allegations. 7. When confronted, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that in the enquiry report some material was relied on which was not part of charge, therefore, authorities travelled beyond the charge. 8. In the circumstances, we do not find any manifest error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned. 9. Writ petition lacks merit. 10. Dismissed.