State Of Uttarakhand & Others ...... ... vs Constable 66
2024 Latest Caselaw 896 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand & Others ...... ... vs Constable 66 on 8 May, 2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL

          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
                              AND
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL


                 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 870 OF 2018



                             8TH MAY, 2024

State of Uttarakhand & others                 ......           Appellants

Versus

Constable 66, Yunush Beg                      ......           Respondent


Counsel for the appellants       :   Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing
                                     Counsel of the State

Counsel for the respondent       :   Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)

There is delay of 200 days in filing the present

special appeal. Delay condonation application No. 16634

of 2018 has been filed by the appellant / State. The

same is not seriously opposed by counsel for the

respondent. Accordingly, the delay condonation

application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

2) The State has come up in the present appeal

against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 380 of 2012, dated 06.03.2018,

whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was

allowed on the ground that he was appointed as a

Constable, and dismissed from service without holding

any inquiry. He was reinstated by the department,

however, he was not given back-wages on the principle

of 'no work no pay'. The writ petition was further

allowed on the ground that the petitioner (respondent

herein) was ready to work, but he was terminated

without holding any inquiry under the law. It was also

observed that the respondent had taken divorce from his

previous wife.

3) Both the parties are not aware when the

respondent was appointed as Constable. However, this

is not in dispute that no inquiry was held before

terminating the respondent. Since that was the right of

the employee to be heard by giving her show-cause

notice, an opportunity of hearing had to be given as to

why a harsh punishment of termination from service was

passed by the appellant authorities. In any case,

without giving show-cause notice and without giving

opportunity of hearing, the respondent was rightly

reinstated by the department, hence the back-wages has

to be given to her.

4) In view of the above, we find no merit in the

present appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

5) All pending applications also stands disposed

of.

_______________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 8TH MAY, 2024 Negi