Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. D.S. Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 February, 2026
2026:UHC:988-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
16TH FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 334 OF 2025
Dr. D.S. Bisht ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel.
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, working as Scientist In-charge and District Coordinator in Herbal Research and Development Institute (HRDI), Bhaniyawala Office Near Sapera Basti, Dehradun has preferred the instant writ petition assailing the office memorandum dated 17.12.2024, issued by respondent no.1. The said O.M. has been passed in pursuance of order dated 03.10.2024, passed by this Court in the previous writ petition of the petitioner bearing Writ Petition (S/B) No.631 of 2024, wherein the petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to decide his representation/ 1 2026:UHC:988-DB appeal dated 02.09.2023 against orders dated 12.08.2022 and 16.11.2022.
3. By order dated 12.08.2022, respondent no.2 had imposed minor punishment of withholding of one increment dated 01.07.2022. By the subsequent order dated 16.11.2022, the same respondent had inflicted minor punishment of censure and withholding of increment due on 01.07.2023 for a period of one year.
4. Respondent no.1, in the impugned order, has observed that since the punishment awarded against the petitioner fall under the category of 'minor punishments', and therefore, the detailed procedure prescribed in respect of infliction of a major penalty was not required to be followed and rightly not followed. It has been observed that the petitioner was given notice and opportunity of hearing before the orders were passed.
5. Respondent no.1 has also made a cursory observation to the effect that the appeal under the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, as amended from time to time, was required to be filed within 90 days, but it was not filed within the said period.
2
2026:UHC:988-DB
6. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were by respondent no.2 himself and, therefore, respondent no.2 has been the judge in his own cause in passing the orders of punishment. He submits that the said plea was specifically taken by the petitioner in his representation dated 09.10.2024, but without examining the said plea, the appeal/ representation has been dismissed.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State very fairly accepts that in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, there is no consideration of the said aspect. He, however, submits that the appeal was required to be filed within 90 days, whereas the same was filed beyond the prescribed period. He further submits that under the Service Rules, the orders could have been assailed only by way of an appeal, whereas the petitioner had filed representation and not appeal.
8. Concededly, in the previous round of litigation, the writ petition was disposed of and direction was issued on basis of representation filed by the petitioner to accord 3 2026:UHC:988-DB consideration to the appeal filed by him. Respondent no.1 had already taken decision on the basis of the said direction.
9. Since there was specific direction to accord consideration to the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, we find no merit in the contention relating to labelling done by the petitioner to his grievances raised before respondent no.1 or to the plea of limitation.
10. As the plea raised by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, respondent no.1 should have adverted to the plea that respondent no.2 had been the judge in his own case while passing the impugned orders.
11. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to revisit the matter taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner afore-said within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.
12. The impugned orders would abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no.1 in pursuance of the instant order.
4
2026:UHC:988-DB
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 16th February, 2026 NISHANT NISHANT Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc0 KUMAR 0ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63 A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.02.17 11:12:44 +05'30' 5