Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/289/2014 on 21 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6379-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB No.289 of 2014
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State/ petitioners.
2. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned for the
respondent.
3. State has filed this writ petition challenging
judgment dated 02.04.2014 rendered by
Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal in Claim
Petition No.05/NB/2012. By the said judgment,
Claim Petition filed by respondent challenging
punishment of 'Censure' imposed by The
Secretary Finance, Government of Uttarakhand,
as affirmed in Appeal, was set aside on the
ground that the representation made by
respondent against censure entry was decided
beyond period of 120 days, therefore, the decision
taken on respondent's representation is liable to
be ignored.
4. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent submits that respondent has been
given all benefits, including promotion, in
compliance of the impugned judgment, therefore,
the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, do not
2025:UHC:6379-DB
survive and the petition has become infructuous.
5. Perusal of the judgment rendered by learned
Tribunal reveals that 'punishment of censure' was
confused with 'adverse entry' and learned
Tribunal wrongly relied upon The Uttaranchal
Government Servants (Disposal of Representation
against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and
Allied Matters) Rules, 2002, which do not have
any application in the present case. The
Uttaranchal Government Servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules 2003 enumerates the penalties,
which can be imposed upon Government
Servants and Censure is a minor punishment, as
provided in Rule 3(a-i) of the said Rules.
6. Thus, learned Tribunal was not right in
applying the Rules which are applicable in the
matter of adverse entry, to punishment of
censure. However, from perusal of record, it is
revealed that punishment of 'censure' was given
to respondent by Secretary, Finance, Government
of Uttarakhand and the appeal filed by
respondent was also decided by Secretary,
Finance, which could not have been done by him.
Rule 11(1) of 2003 Rules provides that appeal
shall lie before next higher authority. Rule 11(1)
is reproduced below:-
"11.Appeal--
(1) Except the orders passed under these rules by
2025:UHC:6379-DB
the Governor, the Government Servant shall be
entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from
an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority."
7. Even otherwise also no one can sit in
judgment in appeal against his own order. Since,
The Secretary imposed the punishment of
censure, therefore, he could not have decided the
appeal against his own order, as it is against the
legal maxim "nemo judex in causa sua" which
means that no one can be a judge in his own
cause.
8. Thus while we do not agree with the
reasoning given by learned Tribunal for allowing
claim petition, however, we approve of the
conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal for a
different reason, namely, The Secretary, Finance,
Government of Uttarakhand could not have
decided the appeal against his own order.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to
interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ
petition fails and the same is dismissed.
10. No order as to cost.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.07.2025
SS
SUKHBAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc
7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615,
T SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4
BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D,
cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.07.22 10:06:19 +05'30'
