Uttarakhand High Court
8 August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7251
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 1041 of 2022
18 August, 2025
Brijbhushan
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Mr. Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner
has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
nos.1 & 2 to take action against respondent nos.4 & 5
and punish them by whom the petitioner was
unnecessarily harassed and the FIR was lodged against
petitioner due to which the petitioner suffered huge
mental agony.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year
2011, the petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Officer,
Grade-2, in Haridwar, District Haridwar. Subsequently,
FIR No. 148 of 2011 was lodged by respondent nos. 4
and 5 under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), pursuant to which a criminal trial was
initiated against the petitioner as Criminal Case No. 2785
of 2014, State vs. Brijbhushan. The petitioner was later
on acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment
and order dated 21.02.2017. Thereafter, the State
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2019, which was
also decided in favour of the petitioner, and the appeal
2025:UHC:7251
was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its
judgment and order dated 28.08.2021.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner did not commit any offence and was
falsely implicated by his superiors solely for the purpose
of harassment. He further submits that the learned Trial
Court had observed that PW2, namely Priyanka Singh,
had submitted a false inquiry report, which led to the
suspension of the petitioner. This finding was also
affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the recommendation made by the Inquiry
Officer was in gross violation of Rule 8 of the
Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 2003, as the Inquiry Officer had no authority to
recommend the registration of an FIR. He vehemently
argued that the petitioner had, on multiple occasions,
sought information under the Right to Information Act
(RTI) from the department, specifically inquiring that
under which provision the Chief Agriculture Officer was
empowered to conduct an inquiry against an Assistant
Agriculture Officer, Grade-2. However, he never received
a complete response to his queries. The petitioner also
lodged a complaint against the concerned officers before
the Station House Officer, Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, and
submitted an application dated 18.11.2021 before
respondent no.1, requesting that appropriate action be
taken against the guilty officers who had tarnished his
reputation and career by falsely implicating him in a
criminal case.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the respondents have failed to take any
2025:UHC:7251
action against the guilty officer, despite the fact that the
petitioner has suffered irreparable loss and damage.
6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits
that it was only upon receipt of relevant information and
material on record that a prima facie case was found
against the petitioner, and accordingly, an investigation
was conducted which resulted into.
7. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and
3 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated
that the Inquiry Officer was changed only upon a request
made by the petitioner. It is further stated that, since the
appointing authority for Class-I and Class-II officers is
the State Government, any action pursuant to the
petitioner's representation is required to be taken by the
State Government.
8. The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has
also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated
that the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted by
respondent no. 4 in her official capacity, under the
directions of higher authorities, and that an unbiased
and fair inquiry report was submitted. It is further stated
that the petitioner is harassing respondent no. 4 by filing
multiple applications under the Right to Information Act
(RTI), which is alleged to be an act of personal vengeance
against her. It is also stated that the petitioner has a
prior criminal record, wherein he was convicted under
Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
vide order dated 28.08.2018. Therefore, it is contended
that the present petition is merely a tool to harass
respondent no. 4 and is driven by personal grudge.
2025:UHC:7251
9. In the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5, it
has been stated that he lodged the FIR on the basis of
evidence that came to light during the course of the
enquiry. Respondent No.4 submitted the spot
identification/verification report along with the affidavits
filed by some of the complainant villagers, as per the laid-
down procedure. Accordingly, a decision was taken to
lodge the FIR, and the matter was subsequently
investigated by the police. Statements of witnesses were
recorded, and a charge sheet was filed by the police
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the matter based on the material
available on record, and charges were framed against the
petitioner.
10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits to
the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, wherein it
is stated that the petitioner has not committed any illegal
act, nor was there any embezzlement involved, and that
all government funds were duly deposited with the
Treasury before 31.03.2011. It is further submitted that
the police conducted an investigation and found no
evidence or complaint against the petitioner within the
department. The petitioner reiterates that he was wrongly
implicated in a false case, resulting in irreparable loss
and suffering.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
case for issuance of a writ of mandamus is made out. It
is a well-settled principle of law that mandamus lies only
to enforce a statutory duty or public obligation and
cannot be invoked to compel the initiation of
2025:UHC:7251
departmental action merely based on the petitioner's
perception of false implication. The inquiry in question
was conducted following due process of law, and the
petitioner's subsequent acquittal does not, by itself,
establish any illegality or malice warranting such relief.
On his acquittal of the criminal charges under Sections
409 & 420 IPC, a suit for malicious prosecution ought to
have been filed by the petitioner. The writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy.
The writ petition is highly misconceived and is filed on ill-
advice.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.08.2025
AK
