Uttarakhand High Court
Virendra Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.300 of 2025
Virendra Singh Negi ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.301 of 2025
Birendra Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.302 of 2025
Lokendra Prasad ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.303 of 2025
Ram Singh Panwar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.304 of 2025
Ranbeer Singh Panwar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.305 of 2025
Gajendra Pal Singh ...... Appellant
2
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.306 of 2025
Upendra Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.307 of 2025
Samarveer Singh Bisht ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.308 of 2025
Jagdamba Prasad Nautiyal ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.309 of 2025
Shyam Singh Panwar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
&
Special Appeal No.310 of 2025
Jai Prakash Vyas ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
3
Presence:
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. P.P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Parihar and Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the
State.
Judgment reserved on: 26.09.2025
Judgment delivered on: 07.10.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in
these special appeals, therefore they were heard together and are
being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity, facts of SPA No.300 of 2025 alone are being considered
and discussed here.
2. The present special appeal has been filed by the
appellant to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10-
09-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
58 (S/S) of 2025 titled as "Virendra Singh Negi Versus State of
Uttarakhand and others".
3. The appellant has filed the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge, for the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned charge sheet dated
30-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition)
with all consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated
pursuant thereto.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to take any
coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to
charge sheet dated 30-12-2024."
4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant obtained
a Bachelor of Education degree, styled as Shikshalankar, from
Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In the year
2004, an advertisement was issued by the District Education
Officer, Uttarkashi, inviting applications for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools. The essential
qualification prescribed therein was a Bachelor's degree along with
B.Ed. The application of the appellant was initially rejected;
however, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1305 of 2004, his application was entertained and he was
deputed for Special B.T.C. Training. Thereafter, pursuant to
further orders passed in Writ Petition No.3016 of 2006 (SS), the
appellant was provisionally appointed as Assistant Teacher on
31.07.2006, subject to verification of original certificates and mark
sheets.
5. After rendering service for nearly two decades and
being promoted as Head Master, the appellant was served with a
charge sheet by the District Education Officer (Elementary),
Uttarkashi. The sole allegation therein was that his B.Ed. degree
from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, was invalid since the
said institution was neither recognized by the University Grants
Commission (UGC) nor by the National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE).
6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition
challenging the charge sheet. The learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition holding it to be premature, relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India &
Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28. The
learned Single Judge held that issuance of a charge sheet does not
affect the rights of an employee, as no civil consequence ensues
therefrom, and the validity of the degree could only be examined in
the disciplinary enquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends before us
that the charge sheet could not have been issued after the
appellant had rendered more than 20 years of blemish-free service.
It is submitted that the respondents themselves had verified the
appellant's degree both at the time of his initial appointment as
Assistant Teacher and at the time of his promotion as Head
Master. It is further urged that in earlier writ proceedings, the
respondents had filed a counter affidavit wherein they accepted the
validity of the degree in question. In such circumstances, the
respondents are estopped from questioning the genuineness of the
appellant's qualification at this belated stage. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagar
Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3904 of 2013,
decided on 14.07.2017), wherein it was held that the service of an
employee cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported
the order of the learned Single Judge. He submits that the B.Ed.
degree awarded by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, is not
recognized by the UGC or NCTE, and as such the appellant did not
possess the requisite qualification for appointment as a teacher.
He argues that the mere issuance of a charge sheet causes no
prejudice to the appellant and does not give rise to any cause of
action. It is open to the appellant to raise all objections before the
Inquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) is clear that the mere issuance of
a charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, for the
reason that it is not an adverse order affecting the rights of any
employee. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or
otherwise causing civil consequences is passed, that the employee
acquires a right to challenge the same. The only exception carved
out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is where the charge sheet is
issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction.
11. In the present case, the charge sheet was issued by the
Deputy Education Officer, Mori, District Uttarkashi. It is not the
appellant's case that the said authority lacked jurisdiction to issue
the charge sheet. Thus, the challenge to the charge sheet on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction is not available to him.
12. The core contention of the appellant is that the validity
of his B.Ed. degree has already been accepted by the respondents
at earlier stages and that, having rendered more than 20 years of
service, his appointment cannot now be unsettled. In our view,
such contentions are squarely within the domain of the
disciplinary authority and the Inquiry Officer. The departmental
enquiry is the proper forum where the appellant may raise all
objections, produce material, and seek to establish the validity of
his qualification. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226, cannot assume the role of an Inquiry Officer or
disciplinary authority and undertake an examination of the truth
or falsity of the charges.
13. The reliance placed by the appellant on Nagar Singh
(supra) is misplaced. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dealt with a situation where employees had been in service for
decades without any allegation of misconduct, and their
appointments were sought to be annulled belatedly. In the present
case, however, the departmental enquiry has only been initiated by
issuance of a charge sheet and the correctness of the appellant's
degree is yet to be determined. The principle laid down in Nagar
Singh cannot be extended to quash a charge sheet at its threshold.
14. In view of the settled position of law, we find ourselves
in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The
writ petitions were rightly dismissed as premature, leaving it open
to the appellants to participate in the departmental proceedings
and raise all their defences before the Inquiry Officer.
15. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. However, it is
clarified that the appellants shall be entitled to raise all pleas
available to them in accordance with law before the Inquiry Officer
and the same shall be considered by the disciplinary authority on
its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.10.2025 07.10.2025
BS
BALWANT Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4
SINGH
ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755
DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.10.07 13:19:09 +05'30'
