Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/70/2022 on 12 January, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 70 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate, for the private
respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
It is a second phase of litigation. Earlier, the
petitioner has approached the Writ Court by filing a
Writ Petition No. 561 of 2016, challenging the
order of his termination of his services by an order
dated 20thJuly, 2015. The Writ Petition was allowed
on 14.05.2018, however, the liberty was left open
for the respondents to conduct the proceedings
denovo. Relevant part of the judgment is extracted
hereunder :-
"Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 20.07.2015 is quashed and
set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the
respondent-Corporation to proceed with the matter
in accordance with law."
As a consequence thereto, the respondents
have proceeded to re-conduct an enquiry and the
consequential order of punishment of dismissal has
been rendered against the petitioner by the order
dated 17thAugust 2021, passed by respondent No.4.
The petitioner contends, that owing to the
peculiar family circumstances due to the ailment of
his daughter, he was unable to avail an effective
opportunity of hearing, before the disciplinary
authority and hence the order suffers from vices of
non compliance of the provision contained under
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. But the
fact remains that the Rule under which the action
has been taken against the petitioner itself
contemplates and provides for an Appeal under Part
9 Regulations 69 of the Rules of the Rules of 1981,
as applicable to the petitioner's department.
But, however, the grievance, which has been
raised by the petitioner is that in case if the
petitioner is relegated to avail an opportunity of
Appeal provided under Regulation 63, his Appeal
would not be maintainable, because there it
provides for the period of limitation prescribed
therein of three months from the date of passing of
the order.
But considering the fact, that the petitioner
was having some family crisis, hence while
relegating the petitioner to file an Appeal before the
competent appellate authority, if he prefers an
Appeal within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, the
delay which has chanced as per the provisions
contained under Sub- regulation (5) of Regulation
69, of Regulation of 1981, while preferring an
Appeal that will not create a bar in deciding the
Appeal itself exclusively on its own merit. The
delay in preference of the Appeal would
automatically be deemed to be condoned, in the
light of today's order being passed in the present
Writ Petition.
Accordingly subject to aforesaid exception of
limitation only, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with
the liberty left open to the petitioner to prefer an
Appeal under Regulation 69 of the Regulation of
1981, and if she prefers the same within a period of
one month, the same would be decided on its own
merit and not on the ground of limitation.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 12.01.2022
Shiv
