Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1556/2019 on 29 July, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No.1556 of 2019
With
WPSS No.1557 of 2019
WPSS No.1645 of 2019
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for Milk
Production, Cooperative Federation.
The petitioners to the present writ petitions,
have put a challenge to the impugned order of
13.06.2019 and 14.06.2019, as passed by
respondent no.2. As a consequence thereto, the
disciplinary authority of the petitioners i.e. the
Director had proceeded to pass an order of
punishment while exercising its powers under
Uttarakhand Government Servant (Disciplinary and
Appeal) Rules 2003 and as a consequence thereto
one annual increment was direct to be withheld on a
permanent basis. Consequently, on the aforesaid
order of imposition of punishment, the Director has
passed the subsequent order on 13.06.2013 whereby
the recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been
directed to be made from the petitioners.
Simultaneously, the petitioners have also
given a challenge to the impugned order of
25.06.2019 (Annexure No.13) to the writ petition
where the services of the petitioner of WPSS
No.1556 of 2019, has been transferred from
Haridwar to Pithoragarh; on administrative
grounds.
The petitioners contend that the order of
transfer dated 25.06.2019 would be bad in the eyes
of law, that though it is an administrative transfer
under Section 22 of the Uttarakhand Annual
Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, but since
the petitioner is a "senior employee", as defined
under Section 2 (h) of the Transfer Act of 2017 his
transfer would be protected by Section 7 of the said
Act and he ought not to be transferred, at the fag-
end of his services, particularly when he falls to be
an employee amongst the definition of senior
employee as provided under Transfer Act of 2017.
But so far as the impugned order of
13.06.2019; is concerned and the consequential
order of recovery of amount issued dated
21.06.2019 admittedly, according to the petitioner's
own case, which he has pleaded in rejoinder
affidavit in para 17 and 18, he admits that fact that,
as against the order of punishment he has already
preferred a departmental appeal under Rule 11 of
the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Disciplinary
and Appeal) Rules, 2003 before the Director, Dairy
Development Department, Uttarakhand, Haldwani,
which is pending consideration. Director, Dairy
Development Department, hereby is directed to
decide the aforesaid appeals within a period of two
months from the date of production of certified
copy of this judgment.
In view of the aforesaid admitted fact that as
against the imposition of the penalty by the order of
13.06.2019, the petitioner has himself, had
preferred an appeal under Rule 11 of the Rules of
2003. The writ petition as against the principal
order of imposition of punishment, would not be
maintainable. Hence, to that limited extent, so far as
it gives challenge to the impugned order dated
13.06.2019, against which the petitioner has already
preferred an appeal, the writ petition would be
treated to be dismissed.
But so far as the order of transfer is
concerned since that happens to be in violation of
Section 7 of the Transfer Act, as the petitioner has
contended that he is on the verge of retirement, and
would be attaining the age of superannuation in
January, 2022, the transfer order, which is under
challenge would be kept in abeyance till the
departmental appeal itself of the petitioner is
adjudicated on its own merits.
Subject to the above observations, the writ
petitions partly succeeds so far it relates to the order
of transfer and it is dismissed so far it relates to the
order of punishment against which the petitioners
have already preferred an appeal.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
29.07.2021
Arti
