JUDGMENT : 1. State has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment dated 19.02.2020 by which claim petition of the respondent no.1 has been allowed. 2. The subject matter of the claim petition was a punishment order dated 11.01.2019. The relief for considering the respondent no.1 for promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the date his junior had been so promoted in the year 2013 with all consequential service benefits i.e. promotion, assured career progression on the basis of completion of 26 years services and proper retiral benefits etc. which had been denied on the basis of pending inquiry and punishment order, was also prayed. 3. The facts in brief are that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent no.1 and a charge-sheet dated 01.07.2013 levelling two charges was served upon him to which the respondent no.1 replied on 09.12.2013 denying all charges. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry submitted his report exonerating the respondent no.1on both the charges as has been noted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. The inquiry report was submitted on 02.06.2014. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any action on the said report and kept the matter pending while respondent no.1 retired on 30.04.2015. As his post retiral dues were not being paid presumably on account of continuance of the said proceedings, he filed Claim Petition No.1892 of 2015 inter-alia seeking promotion on the post of Deputy Director from the date the juniors were promoted. The said claim petition was disposed of 21.02.2018. The operative portion of which is quoted hereinabove:- ^^;kph dh ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr djrs gq, foi{khx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;kph ds fo#) izpfyr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fnuk¡d 01-07-2013 o 22-07-2015 fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr izkIr gksus ds 60 fnu ds vUnj iw.kZ djuk lqfuf'pr djsa] ;fn foi{khx.k ,slk djus esa vlQy jgrs gSa rks vkjksi i= fnukad 01-07-2013 vfHk[kf.Mr le>k tk;sxkA** 4. On a bare reading of the said judgment and its operative portion, it is evident that Tribunal while disposing of the claim petition of respondent no.1 directed the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the disciplinary proceeding dated 01.07.2013 and 22.07.2015 within 60 days of receipt of certified copy of the said judgment, failing which charge-sheet dated 01.07.2013 shall be treated as cancelled. 5. A specific query was put to learned Standing Counsel for the State as to whether said judgment dated 21.02.2018 was challenged. 5. A specific query was put to learned Standing Counsel for the State as to whether said judgment dated 21.02.2018 was challenged. He responded by saying that it was not challenged meaning thereby the said judgment attained finality. 6. Now it is the admitted factual position that disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated on 01.07.2013 by issuance of charge-sheet, regarding which approval had been taken from His Excellency the Governor under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation on 22.07.2015, was not completed within the period of 60 days as provided vide its judgment dated 21.02.2018. Consequently, in view of the said judgment, charge-sheet dated 01.07.2013 stood cancelled/quashed meaning thereby the respondent could not have proceeded with the said disciplinary proceedings any further yet as is borne out from record, the same was proceeded and on 11.01.2019 punishment order was passed directing recovery of Rs.2,40,345- from pension gratuity of respondent no.1. It is this punishment order which was put to challenge before the Tribunal by respondent no.1 by means of a claim petition which has been allowed by impugned judgment dated 19.02.2020. 7. On a perusal of the judgment, Court finds that Tribunal was persuaded to quash the punishment order dated 01.01.2019 as disciplinary proceedings were not completed in terms of judgment dated 21.02.2018 and consequent thereof in view of the directions/ observations therein the charge-sheet itself stood cancelled as such the punishment order could not have been passed. 8. We are of the view that the proceedings were kept pending by the petitioner since 2013 and were not completed in spite of the judgment dated 21.02.2018 as directed by the Tribunal, therefore, in view of the said judgment, the charge-sheet stood cancelled as such any proceedings thereafter were without jurisdiction. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.