Unknown vs Chandra Shekhar Pandey
2025 Latest Caselaw 460 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Chandra Shekhar Pandey on 2 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                       2025:UHC:4416-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

                                AND

  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

           Writ Petition (S/B) No.169 of 2020
                           2nd June, 2025

 State of Uttarakhand & others                      -------Petitioners

                                 Versus

 Chandra Shekhar Pandey                             ------Respondent
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Presence:-
 Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the
 petitioners/State.
 Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 JUDGMENT:

(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

State has filed this writ petition challenging judgment and order dated 06.11.2019, rendered by learned Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2018. By the said judgment, the order of punishment passed on 05.07.2008, whereby two major penalties were imposed upon petitioner, namely, stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and reduction in rank, was set aside. However, the adverse entry recorded for the period 30.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 was not interfered with. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is extracted herein below:

2025:UHC:4416-DB "24. The punishment order (Annexure:A1) itself makes it clear that the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order, only on the basis of the fact that inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and has also recommended the punishment, and on the basis of his recommendation of punishment, the impugned punishment order was passed. The Disciplinary Authority never applied his independent judicial mind to the fact recorded in the inquiry report or to the punishment, neither he recorded any finding or his agreement or disagreement with the finding of the inquiry officer nor he has applied his independent mind for awarding the punishment to the petitioner. This is the case where the Disciplinary Authority totally failed to discharge the duties assigned to him and completing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner without following the rules and on that basis, the impugned punishment order dated 05.07.2008, which is against the rules and principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, needs to be set aside.

Consequently, the order of the appellate courts also deserves to be set aside as the appellate court did not consider the merit of the case and there is no finding about the propriety or impropriety of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the punishment authority.

25. The petitioner has also contended that on the basis of the said conduct, an adverse entry was also awarded to him on 23.07.2008 for the year 2007-08 and a request has been made to set aside the same. The recording an annual entry for a particular year is not a part of the sentence hence, it cannot be considered now, connecting with any disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, in the annual entry, the controlling officer recorded his finding about the general conduct of the petitioner, hence, it cannot be said that such adverse entry was totally based on the fact of the disciplinary proceedings, although this

2025:UHC:4416-DB fact has also been mentioned therein. This has been referred to record the carelessness in his general conduct of his official duties. So this was not recorded as punishment neither said entry was totally dependent on the facts, which were made basis of the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the criminal appeal in which in the petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges, was decided on technical ground, while on the factual basis, the Magistrate recorded the punishment of conviction against the petitioner which was set aside only on the basis of the fact that prior permission of the competent authority was not taken before initiating the criminal proceedings. Hence, the petitioner was not exonerated from the criminal charges on merits rather he was acquitted on technical ground.

26. Considering all the circumstances, we are of the view that the claim petition deserves to be partly allowed to the extent that the main punishment order dated 05.07.2008 (Annexure:A-1) passed by the respondent No. 4 and appellate order dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure: A-2) deserve to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for other benefits including ACP and his promotion as per the rules and the Government orders. It is, however, made clear that the adverse entry recorded for the period 30.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 needs not to be interfered, and the following order is hereby passed."

2. State has challenged the said judgment on the ground that petitioner, who was serving as Senior Clerk in Rural Engineering Service at the relevant point of time, presented not only the original Bank Draft for clearance in the bank but also presented coloured photocopy thereof for clearance in the Bank, which is a serious misconduct. It is further contended that learned Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition on the ground that no financial

2025:UHC:4416-DB loss was caused to the department by the alleged misconduct of the respondent.

3. Learned State counsel submits that while serving as Senior Assistant in Rural Engineering Service Department, respondent attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs from State Bank of India, Branch Nainital by submitting colour photocopy of the original Bank Draft which was earlier presented and cleared by the Bank. Thus he contends that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was justified having regard to the gravity of misconduct committed by him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that the day when original Bank Draft was received in the office, the colour printer was repaired and colour photocopy of the Bank Draft was taken for the purpose of testing the printer but due to mistake, the said colour photocopy of Bank Draft came to be presented in the account of Rural Engineering Service Department under the impression that the Bank Draft was not presented for clearance to the Bank. Thus, he submits that it was a bonafide mistake and respondent was not going to get any undue benefit out of it as the Bank Draft was presented for credit to the account of the Department. He further submits that since the disciplinary proceedings were not held as per the provision contained in the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment order dated 05.07.2008.

5. We have gone through the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2019. Learned Tribunal has held that the

2025:UHC:4416-DB Inquiry Officer and not the Disciplinary Authority, issued the charge-sheet which is contrary to law; the inquiry report was not supplied to respondent which resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself to the respondent; the Disciplinary Authority mechanically imposed the penalties as recommended by the Inquiry Officer and did not apply his mind to the findings and there is nothing to indicate in the final order that Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer.

6. The view taken by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 lays down the procedure which has to be followed in a Disciplinary Inquiry. As per rule 7 (1) of the said rules, disciplinary authority may himself conduct an inquiry and as per Rule 7 (2), the charge-sheet shall be issued by the Disciplinary Authority except in cases where his excellency the Governor is the appointing authority, then charge-sheet shall be signed by the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the concerned department.

7. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (7), (8) & (9) of Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules indicate that after receiving written statement of defence of the employee against charge-sheet, the Disciplinary Authority may himself inquire into the charges or he may appoint an inquiry officer. Thus, the view taken by learned Tribunal that the Inquiry Officer could not have issued the charge-sheet cannot be faulted. As per the scheme of the Rules, an inquiry officer has to be appointed only after receiving reply of the charge-sheeted employee, therefore, the finding returned by learned Tribunal that issuance of charge-sheet

2025:UHC:4416-DB by the Inquiry Officer was contrary to norms, cannot be interfered with.

8. Similarly, in Rule (8) of the aforesaid rules, it is provided in the last sentence that "the inquiry officer shall not make any recommendation about the penalty". The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the Disciplinary Authority independently applies his mind to the material available on record and also to the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer before forming an opinion regarding the punishment, to be imposed, upon the employee who has been held guilty by enquiry officer.

9. However, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority was completely swayed by the recommendation regarding penalty made by Inquiry Officer and he did not consider other material, including finding returned by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, Tribunal rightly held that the course adopted by Disciplinary Authority was not as per law. Admittedly, report of the Inquiry Officer was not supplied to respondent, due to which, he lost the opportunity of persuading the Disciplinary Authority to take a different or lenient view in the matter. Although, non-compliance with the requirement of providing Inquiry report to the charge- sheeted employee might not automatically in-validate the punishment order, however it can be a ground for challenging the punishment if it is shown that the employee was prejudiced by non-compliance, as held in the case of ECIL vs. V. Karunakaran, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727.

10. Learned Tribunal has given valid reasons for setting aside the punishment order, therefore, we are of the

2025:UHC:4416-DB view that any interference with the impugned judgment would not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Dated: 02.06.2025 Kaushal