Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Anand Mehra on 23 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 194 of 2020
23rd September, 2025
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...........Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mehra ..........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner/State.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Petitioner/State has challenged the impugned
judgment dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Uttarakhand Public
Service Tribunal, Dehradun ('the Tribunal') passed in Claim
Petition No. 57/SB/2018, Anand Mehra Vs. State and Others
('Claim Petition'). By the impugned judgment, 'an entry of
censure' is substituted with 'warned to be careful in future'.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The respondent was Investigating Officer in Case
Crime No. 167/2015 under Section 147, 148, 323, 353, 506,
427, 153-A IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garwhal. With regard to
some act committed during investigation, in a departmental
disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was held guilty and he
was awarded censure entry. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent preferred claim petition, in which, the entry of
censure has been substituted with 'warned to be careful in
future'.
4. Learned counsel for the State/petitioner submits that
in the Service Rules, after the disciplinary proceedings, the
lowest punishment that could be awarded is censure entry.
There is no other punishment less than censure entry. He
submits that the Tribunal committed an error by substituting
the censure entry with 'warned to be careful in future'.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
another Claim Petition No.1/SB/2018 was filed by one Vikas
Bhardwaj, who was also Investigating Officer in the same case
crime number and against whom, the common disciplinary
proceedings were under taken; he was also awarded "censure"
entry by the Department, but, in his claim petition it was
substituted by the Tribunal with "warned to be careful in
future", therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment is
passed on parity.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits
that there should be parity in punishment and it may not be
reasonable now to upset the judgment awarded by the Tribunal
in view of the fact that similar treatment has been given to Vikas
Bhardwarj, which has attained finality. Though, he fairly
concedes that the "censure" entry, with the efflux of time, has
now lost its significance.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that in
paragraph no.5, on behalf of the respondent, an apology was
given and the error was accepted. It is true that in the impugned
order, reference has been made to the Claim Petition
No.1/SB/2018 filed by Vikas Bhardwaj against the State of
Uttarakhand and Others, in which, the "censure" entry was
substituted with the entry of "warned to be careful in future". It
is also admitted that Vikas Bhardwaj and respondent were
subjected in a common disciplinary proceedings and both were
given censure entry.
8. This Court refrains to make any comment in the case
of Vikas Bhardwaj and the judgment given by the Tribunal in
that case. This Court is concerned with the claim of respondent
and the legality of the impugned judgment passed by the
Tribunal.
9. Insofar as the proportionality and parity of sentence
is concerned, definitely the Appointing Authority has to maintain
parity and the punishment/penalty should be proportionate to
the act complained of. In the impugned judgment, in paragraph
nos. 10, 11 & 12, the Tribunal has observed as follows:
"10. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the
'censure entry' should make way for 'warning' to the
petitioner. In other words, censure entry should be
diluted and the petitioner should be warned to be
careful in future.
11. Order accordingly.
12. While finding of 'misconduct' arrived at by the
disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate
authority, are maintained, this Court finds cogent
reasons, in the peculiar facts of the case, to substitute
the minor punishment of 'censure entry' awarded to
the petitioner, with 'warning'. 'Censure entry' is
accordingly, substituted with 'warned to be careful in
future'."
10. A bare reading of it reveals that though the Tribunal
considered the judgment given in the case of Vikas Bhardwaj,
but, for arriving at the conclusion, an independent opinion was
formed by the Tribunal. It is admitted even to the learned
counsel for the respondent that in the disciplinary proceedings,
the lowest punishment is "censure" entry and there is no
punishment of "warned to be careful in future".
11. The respondent was held guilty in the disciplinary
proceedings. He was awarded the lowest punishment that is
permissible under the Rules, therefore, the lowest punishment
cannot be substituted by any other punishment.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with
law and it deserves to be set aside.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
14. The impugned judgment dated 31.12.2018 passed by
the Tribunal in Claim Petition is hereby set aside.
15. The punishment order awarding censure entry to the
respondent stands restored.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.09.2025 23.09.2025
Mamta/Ujjawal
MAMT
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af
1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd64267132
A RANI
9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd5485
2c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d
8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2025.09.25 17:14:36 +05'30'
