[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. D.S. Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 February, 2026
2026:UHC:988-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
16TH FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 334 OF 2025
Dr. D.S. Bisht ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned State Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, working as Scientist In-charge
and District Coordinator in Herbal Research and
Development Institute (HRDI), Bhaniyawala Office Near
Sapera Basti, Dehradun has preferred the instant writ
petition assailing the office memorandum dated
17.12.2024, issued by respondent no.1. The said O.M.
has been passed in pursuance of order dated 03.10.2024,
passed by this Court in the previous writ petition of the
petitioner bearing Writ Petition (S/B) No.631 of 2024,
wherein the petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus
directing respondent no.1 to decide his representation/
2026:UHC:988-DB
appeal dated 02.09.2023 against orders dated
12.08.2022 and 16.11.2022.
3. By order dated 12.08.2022, respondent no.2
had imposed minor punishment of withholding of one
increment dated 01.07.2022. By the subsequent order
dated 16.11.2022, the same respondent had inflicted
minor punishment of censure and withholding of
increment due on 01.07.2023 for a period of one year.
4. Respondent no.1, in the impugned order, has
observed that since the punishment awarded against the
petitioner fall under the category of 'minor punishments',
and therefore, the detailed procedure prescribed in
respect of infliction of a major penalty was not required
to be followed and rightly not followed. It has been
observed that the petitioner was given notice and
opportunity of hearing before the orders were passed.
5. Respondent no.1 has also made a cursory
observation to the effect that the appeal under the
Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 2003, as amended from time to time, was required
to be filed within 90 days, but it was not filed within the
said period.
2026:UHC:988-DB
6. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted
that the charges which were levelled against the
petitioner were by respondent no.2 himself and,
therefore, respondent no.2 has been the judge in his own
cause in passing the orders of punishment. He submits
that the said plea was specifically taken by the petitioner
in his representation dated 09.10.2024, but without
examining the said plea, the appeal/ representation has
been dismissed.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State very fairly accepts that in the impugned order
passed by respondent no.1, there is no consideration of
the said aspect. He, however, submits that the appeal
was required to be filed within 90 days, whereas the
same was filed beyond the prescribed period. He further
submits that under the Service Rules, the orders could
have been assailed only by way of an appeal, whereas
the petitioner had filed representation and not appeal.
8. Concededly, in the previous round of litigation,
the writ petition was disposed of and direction was issued
on basis of representation filed by the petitioner to accord
2026:UHC:988-DB
consideration to the appeal filed by him. Respondent no.1
had already taken decision on the basis of the said
direction.
9. Since there was specific direction to accord
consideration to the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, at
this stage, we find no merit in the contention relating to
labelling done by the petitioner to his grievances raised
before respondent no.1 or to the plea of limitation.
10. As the plea raised by the petitioner goes to the
root of the matter and, therefore, respondent no.1 should
have adverted to the plea that respondent no.2 had been
the judge in his own case while passing the impugned
orders.
11. In view of the same, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to revisit
the matter taking into consideration the plea of the
petitioner afore-said within a period of six weeks from the
date of communication of the instant order.
12. The impugned orders would abide by the
decision that would be taken by respondent no.1 in
pursuance of the instant order.
2026:UHC:988-DB
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 16th February, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc0
KUMAR
0ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63
A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.02.17 11:12:44 +05'30'
