Pet it ioner v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

challenged t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal on 09.02.2017; order passed by Disciplinary Aut horit y on 13.02.2015; and t he order passed by Appellat e Aut horit y on 06.06.2016 in t his Writ Pet it ion.

2. I t is not in disput e t hat pet it ioner has been serving as a Firem an in Ut t arakhand Police Fire Service. He was t ransferred from Kot dwar ( Pauri Garhwal) t o Nainit al, vide order dat ed 29.07.2014. Pet it ioner challenged t he said order in Writ Pet it ion No. 1111 of 2014 and learned Single Judge of t his Court on

08.08.2014 passed an int erim order, st aying t he effect and operat ion of t he said t ransfer order, qua t he pet it ioner and t he writ pet it ion was ult im at ely allowed 1 vide j udgm ent dat ed 07.10.2014. Pet it ioner subm it t ed a copy of t he st ay order passed by t his Court before Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal issued a show cause not ice t o t he pet it ioner on 23.08.2014, alleging t hat pet it ioner was required t o report for t he dut ies at t he t ransferred place i.e. Nainit al up t o 08.08.2014, however, he failed t o do so.

3. Thereaft er, anot her not ice was issued t o pet it ioner on 24.10.2014, whereby, pet it ioner was asked t o show cause, as t o why punishm ent of censure m ay not be im posed upon him for his act of indiscipline in not report ing for dut ies at t he t ransferred place wit hin t he j oining t im e given t o him .

4. Pet it ioner gave reply t o bot h t he show cause not ices, denying t he charges levelled against him , and he st at ed t hat t he Hon’ble High Court passed a st ay order on 08.08.2014, and since 09.08.2014 and

10.08.2014 were holidays on account of second Sat urday and Sunday, t herefore, cert ified copy of order could be obt ained only on 11.08.2014. Pet it ioner appeared before Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal on 12.08.2014, and Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal also direct ed t he pet it ioner t o appear before t he 2 I .G. Office, Dehradun, and pet it ioner t hereaft er went t o I .G. Office, Dehradun and appeared before I .G. on

14.08.2014, and an ent ry t o t his effect was m ade in t he regist er; I nspect or General of Police, Dehradun inst ruct ed t he pet it ioner t o go back t o Kot dwar, Pauri Garhwal and report for dut ies t here, and, pet it ioner im m ediat ely went t o Kot dwar and part icipat ed in t he I ndependence Day parade on 15.08.2014, and a cert ificat e t o t his effect was also issued t o him ; pet it ioner rem ained at Kot dwar, Pauri Garhwal t hroughout t his period, request ing Fire Officer t o perm it t o resum e dut ies; however, t he Fire Officer perm it t ed pet it ioner t o j oin his dut ies only on

18.08.2014. Thus, he cont ended t hat t here is no act of indiscipline com m it t ed by pet it ioner, and punishm ent of censure proposed against him is unsust ainable.

5. The Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, however, found t he explanat ion offered by t he pet it ioner t o be unsat isfact ory, and im posed punishm ent of censure vide order dat ed 13.02.2015. By t he sam e order, t he Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal also provided for wit hholding of t en day’s salary of t he pet it ioner t he period bet ween 08.08.2014 t o

17.08.2014. 3

6. Pet it ioner challenged t he said punishm ent in Appeal, which was dism issed. Pet it ioner, t hereaft er, approached t he Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Pet it ion No. 45/ DB/ 2016, which t oo was dism issed by t he im pugned j udgm ent .

7. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he record.

8. Approaching a Court of Law for vindicat ion of right s is no offence. From t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, and also t he language used in t he not ices issued t o t he pet it ioner, by t he Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, it appears t hat he got annoyed due t o pet it ioner approaching t his Court against t he t ransfer order. Since t here is evidence available on record t o indicat e t hat cert ified copy of t he st ay order was supplied t o t he pet it ioner on 12.08.2014; regarding his appearance before t he I nspect or General of Police, Dehradun on 14.08.2014; regarding his part icipat ion in t he I ndependence Day parade at Kot dwar on

15.08.2014, t herefore, t he t aken Superint endent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, t hat t he reply given by t he pet it ioner is unsat isfact ory, does not appear t o be j ust ified. Since an int erim order was passed in favour of pet it ioner by t his Court , t herefore he cannot 4 be punished for not j oining at t he t ransferred place wit hin t he t im e given for t he purpose.

9. I n t he fact s and circum st ances of t his case, absence from dut ies for about t en days cannot be said t o be unaut horized, so as t o at t ract punishm ent of censure. Learned Tribunal, however, overlooked t his aspect of t he m at t er, and dism issed t he Claim Pet it ion by holding t hat it will not re- appreciat e t he evidence, while exercising power of j udicial review. Since, t here is no evidence t o support t he charge leveled against t he pet it ioner, and he was able t o offer valid j ust ificat ion for his absence, t herefore, t he punishm ent im posed upon t he pet it ioner, cannot be sust ained.

10. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he Writ Pet it ion is allowed. The j udgm ent rendered by Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, as well as by Disciplinary Aut horit y, as affirm ed by t he Appellat e Aut horit y, are hereby quashed and set aside. M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 20 t h March, 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa 08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF 0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 5