Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1214/2020 on 18 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1214 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Mahendra Singh ....Petitioner
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1215 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Vijay Singh .....Petitioner
(By Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
(By Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since common questions of law and fact
are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are
being taken up together and are being decided by
this common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of WPSS No. 1214 of 2022 are being
considered.
3. Petitioner was placed under suspension
vide order dated 31.01.2020 passed by District
Education Officer (Elementary), Rudraprayag. By the
same order, Deputy Block Education Officer, Jakholi
was appointed as (Enquiry Officer). Thereafter, on
19.02.2020, the Deputy Block Education Officer
(Enquiry Officer) issued a charge-sheet to the
petitioner, requiring him to submit a reply on or
before 25.02.2020. Petitioner submitted his reply
and pleaded not guilty, however, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 30.07.2020, in which he
not only held the petitioner guilty; but, also
recommended that punishment of removal from
service be imposed upon the petitioner. Based on
the enquiry report, order of punishment was passed
against the petitioner, on 21.08.2020 whereby
petitioner has been removed from service.
4. In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the punishment order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority on various grounds. The first
and foremost ground taken by learned counsel for
the petitioner is that provisions contained in
Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 2003, particularly, Rule 7 have been
violated while appointing the Enquiry Officer and
also while Enquiry Officer issued the charge sheet.
He further submits that Enquiry Officer should not
have recommended punishment to be imposed upon
the petitioner, in view of express bar contained in
Rule 8.
5. After arguing for a while, Mr. Jayvardhan
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner submits that
controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely
covered by judgment of this Court rendered in WPSS
664 of 2020. He thus prays that this writ petition
may be decided in terms of the said judgment.
6. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that
the flaws in the disciplinary enquiry as indicated in
the aforesaid judgment are present in the present
case as here also the charge-sheet was issued by
the Enquiry Officer and not by the Disciplinary
Authority.
7. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State, however points out that a
special investigation team was constituted to verify
the educational documents of all Teachers and,
during document verification, it was found that B.Ed
degree of the petitioner, on the strength of which he
was appointed, was not issued by Chaudhary Charan
Singh University, Meerut.
8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that
Discipline & Appeal Rules, which governs the field
was not followed while holding the disciplinary
enquiry against the petitioner and the charge sheet
was issued by the enquiry officer and not by the
disciplinary authority. Moreover, the enquiry officer
recommended the penalty, which is impermissible in
view of Rule 8 of applicable Rules. On this short
point alone, the punishment order passed against
the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned termination order dated 21.08.2020
is quashed. The Competent Authority, however, is at
liberty to proceed in respect of the petitioner afresh,
as per the procedure laid down in Uttarakhand
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
2003.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Shubham
