State of Uttarakhand and others v. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has never disobeyed any command of the superior 4 authorities; he continued his services; he was never given any other written order for his repatriation to Sub-Jail, Roorkee; on

26.06.2021, he was relieved by the respondent no. 3 to join his duties in Sub-Jail, Roorkee, but he was not permitted to join and, in fact, the impugned communication was made by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5 to remove the petitioner from the jail duty, on which the respondent no. 5 also sought an explanation from the petitioner.

7. Learned State Counsel would submit that on 14.02.2021, the petitioner was telephonically informed to join his duties in Sub- Jail, but he did not join. He submits that this fact was not denied by the petitioner in his reply; further, the post on which, the petitioner was working has now been filled up by a regular employee.

8. In fact, the respondents have not refuted anything, which is claimed by the petitioner. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner writes that on 13.03.2014, he was attached to the office of the respondent no. 3 till further orders. This order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In his counter affidavit, the respondent no. 2, in para 7 states that “It is submitted that the petitioner was posted with Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee in the capacity of Incharge Jail Superintendent, as and when, the Joint Magistrate/Sub District Magistrate was discharged from the duties of Jail Superintendent, Roorkee, it was the duty of the petitioner that he should resume his duty in Sub Jail Roorkee.”

9. This reply has no basis. The order dated 13.02.2014 by which the petitioner was attached in the security of the Joint Magistrate is categorical. It does not say as to when and under what 5 circumstances, the petitioner should discharge his duty with the respondent no. 3. The order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure 3) categorically attaches the petitioner with the Joint Magistrate on security duty till further orders.

10. In para 15 of the his writ petition, the petitioner writes that the respondent no. 3/Joint Magistrate, Roorkee had informed the respondent no. 4/Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail Roorkee by way of communication dated 09.04.2021 that the petitioner had been working with him. Communication dated 09.04.2021 is Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

11. In para 13 of his counter affidavit, the respondent no. 2 has not denied this fact. In fact it is admitted that the petitioner was posted as security personnel with the respondent no. 3. In para 13 of his counter affidvit, the respondent no. 2 writes that “...the petitioner was posted as the security person of Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee as he was having the charge of Jail Superintendent. The petitioner was also informed regarding the posting of new Jail Superintendent, in such situation after information petitioner had to join his duties at Sub Jail, Roorkee, but the petitioner did not join the duties.”. This assertion as made in para 13 is not based on any fact.

12. The fact remains that on 13.02.2014, the duties of the petitioner were attached with the Joint Magistrate, Roorkee till further orders. This order has never been recalled. Admittedly, the petitioner was never told in writing to resume his duties at Sub-Jail Roorkee. Not only this, in para 17 of his writ petition, the petitioner further writes that again on 01.06.2021, the Joint Magistrate, 6 Roorkee had informed the Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail Roorkee that the petitioner is attached with him and had been working in the month of April, 2021 and May, 2021. This communication is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Again, it has not been categorically denied in para 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2.

13. What is more interesting to notice is that, in fact, the respondent no. 3/SDM/Joint Magistrate, Roorkee had relieved the petitioner on 26.06.2021, which means that till 26.06.201, the petitioner was working with the SDM/Joint Magistrate, Roorkee, pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2014, which is not in dispute.

14. By the impugned order dated 16.06.2021, the respondent no. 4 did not terminate the services of the petitioner. It only had recommended the respondent no. 5/UPNL to remove the petitioner from jail duties. The Respondent no. 5 has yet not passed any order. In fact, Annexure 16, a notice given by the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner, seeks explanation of the petitioner, though it writes in the first paragraph that the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 16.06.2021 of the respondent no. 4. But, the communication of the respondent no. 4 dated 16.06.2021 does not speak so.

15. In fact, the communication dated 16.06.2021 has no basis. The petitioner never remained absent. He was continuously giving his duties with the respondent no. 3 pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2014. It appears that the petitioner’s voice has never been heard. 7

16. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated at all. The recommendation dated 16.06.2021 has been made without any basis, therefore, this recommendation also needs to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

17. The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated

16.06.2021 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) is quashed. It is directed that based on the communication dated 16.06.2021 of the respondent no. 5 and the show cause notice dated 13.07.2021, the petitioner shall not be denied resuming his duties at Sub-Jail Roorkee. Having relieved by the respondent no. 3/the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate on 26.06.2021 (Annexure 10), the petitioner shall join his duties at Sub-Jail Roorkee forthwith. Avneet/ (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

20.05.2025