Uttarakhand High Court
380 Cp. Yogesh Kumar vs Director General Of Police on 12 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 290 of 2016
380 CP. Yogesh Kumar ........... Petitioner
Vs.
Director General of Police,
Uttarakhand and another ........ Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
"1. Issue any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to pay
the complete salary and all other allowances, as well
as, consequential benefits of service, with effect from
15th February 2005 to 2nd February, 2007.
2. Issue any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of
Mandamus to refix the salary of the Petitioner, in as
much as, the punishment order dated 1st March 2008
passed by the Second Respondent, was effective for a
period of three year, however, the Petitioner has not
been restored to its original position, salary with
respect to after the period of three years.
3. Issue any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to
grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner as
prayed in prayer 1 and 2.
4. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
5. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the
Petitioner. "
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the police in the
year 2001. On an anonymous complaint, after mere a preliminary
enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 15.02.2005; he challenged
the order of dismissal unsuccessfully in the appeal, but in revision, he
was successful. By an order dated 03.08.2006, his dismissal was
quashed and liberty was given to the department to proceed in
accordance with the rules. Again departmental proceedings were
undertaken and petitioner was found guilty of the charges and he was
reduced minimum of pay-scale for the period of three years and it was
directed that he shall not be entitled to any salary or allowances except
that which he had already received. Order was passed on 01.03.2008, it
was not challenged in the appeal and it gained finality.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length. In fact,
petitioner is aggrieved by the part of order dated 01.03.2008, by which
it is directed that he shall not be paid any pay and allowances except
what he had already received. This is the order by which his pay-scale
was reduced to the minimum of the pay-scale for three years.
5. The Court posed a question that this is punishment, which
was provided to the petitioner and as per petition, it was not challenged
by the petitioner and it had attained finality. In that eventuality, why the
petitioner did not challenge that part of the order in appeal, by which he
was aggrieved?
6. To it, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks liberty to
file departmental appeal against the order dated 01.03.2008, with the
prayer that the State department may be directed to consider it on time
and not to dismiss it on the ground of delay.
7. Learned State counsel gives a statement that in case,
petitioner files departmental appeal against the punishment provided in
the departmental proceedings on 01.03.2008, it shall be considered on
merit within a period of three weeks.
8. The Court takes on record the statements given by the
learned counsel for the State.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the order dated 01.03.2008, in the departmental
appeal. In case, such an appeal is moved within a period of three weeks
from today, it shall be deemed to have been filed on time and it shall be
decided on merits.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
12.04.2021
Sanjay
