7231-DB H ON ’ BLE M R. G. N A REN D A R v. Counsel for t he

I t is pert inent t o m ent ion t hat t his was not t he first occasion w hen t he Appellant ’s appoint m ent and ser vice had com e under challenge. I n an earlier round of lit igat ion, t he Appellant had been t erm inat ed from service, which order she assailed by filing Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 952 of 2019. By j udgm ent dat ed 14.07.2020, a Coordinat e Bench of t his Court set aside t he said t erm inat ion and direct ed t he aut horit ies t o conduct t he disciplinary proceedings st rict ly in accordance wit h Rule 7 of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Ser vant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, as am ended in 2010. This background assum es significance, for it cast a clear obligat ion upon t he disciplinary aut hor it y t o t hereaft er adhere scr upulously t o t he st at ut ory safeguar ds befor e t aking any punit ive act ion. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 2 Ashish Naithani, J.

5. Pur suant t o t he com plaint s and not wit hst anding t he earlier dir ect ions of t his Court , fr esh disciplinar y pr oceedings wer e again init iat ed against t he Appellant . A charge sheet was issued t o her, and t he inquir y was ent rust ed t o t he Deput y Educat ion Officer , Gadar pur , Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar. The I nquiry Officer consider ed t he writ t en reply subm it t ed by t he Appellant and, t her eaft er , subm it t ed his report dat ed

11.02.2021 t o t he disciplinary aut horit y.

6. According t o t he Appellant , t he said inquir y report was wholly unsat isfact ory, inasm uch as it m erely reproduced t he cont ent s of her r eply wit hout r ecording any independent findings on t he char ges fram ed against her . Following t he receipt of t his report , t he Dist rict Educat ion Officer ( Elem ent ar y Educat ion) , Udham Singh Nagar, issued a show cause not ice dat ed 27.02.2021, requiring t he Appellant t o subm it her response by 15.03.2021. The Appellant com plied w it hin t he st ipulat ed t im e and filed a det ailed reply cont est ing t he r eport and assert ing her defence on fact s as w ell as on law.

7. Not wit hst anding t he r eply so filed, t he disciplinary aut horit y proceeded t o pass an order dat ed 18.03.2021, t erm inat ing t he services of t he Appellant . The t erm inat ion order recorded t hat t he Appellant was guilt y of t he charges levelled against her and observ ed t hat her cont inuance in service was im per m issible.

8. Aggrieved by t he said t erm inat ion order , t he Appellant pr efer red Writ Pet it ion No. 514 of 2021 ( S/ S) befor e t his Court . She assailed t he order of t erm inat ion prim arily on t he ground t hat t he inquiry proceedings culm inat ing in her dism issal had been conduct ed in com plet e disr egar d of t he Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 3 Ashish Naithani, J. m andat e of Rule 7 of t he 2003 Rules and in violat ion of t he set t led principles of nat ural j ust ice.

9. The learned Single Judge, by j udgm ent and order dat ed 03.10.2024, dism issed t he writ pet it ion. The lear ned Judge observ ed t hat t he allegat ions against t he Appellant w er e grave in nat ur e, and furt her held t hat t he deficiencies point ed out by her did not const it ut e such subst ant ial lapses as would vit iat e t he disciplinary proceedings. I t was also recor ded t hat , in view of t he m at erial on recor d, t he Appellant could not legit im at ely claim t he prot ect ion of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, since her appoint m ent it self was under a cloud and liable t o be t r eat ed as inv alid.

10. Challenging t he aforesaid j udgm ent , t he pr esent Special Appeal has been filed under Chapt er VI I I , Rule 5 of t he High Court Rules. By way of t his appeal, t he Appellant pray s for set t ing aside t he j udgm ent dat ed 03.10.2024 as well as t he t erm inat ion or der dat ed 18.03.2021, and issuance of direct ions t o reinst at e her in serv ice wit h all consequent ial benefit s.

11. Hear d learned counsel for t he part ies and per used t he r ecor ds.

12. Lear ned counsel t he Appellant opened his subm issions by cont ending t hat t he im pugned t er m inat ion order dat ed 18.03.2021, as w ell as t he j udgm ent of t he learned Single Judge dat ed

03.10.2024, are w holly unsust ainable in law and on fact s. I t was urged t hat t he disciplinary proceedings culm inat ing in t he dism issal of t he Appellant were conduct ed in flagrant violat ion of t he m andat e Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 4 Ashish Naithani, J. of Rule 7 of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 ( as am ended in 2010) .

13. Lear ned counsel for t he Appellant subm it t ed t hat Rule 7 lay s down t he st at ut ory procedur e t o be followed before im posing a m aj or penalt y such as dism issal or r em oval from service. This includes t he fram ing of specific charges, product ion and pr oof of docum ent s relied upon, recording of oral evidence, affording t he delinquent em ployee an opport unit y of cross- exam inat ion, and finally, t he r endering of a reasoned repor t by t he I nquiry Officer on each art icle of char ge. I n t he inst ant case, none of t hese r equirem ent s w er e adhered t o, and t he inquiry was reduced t o a hollow for m alit y.

14. I t was specifically urged t hat t he I nquiry Officer’s report dat ed 11.02.2021 is no inquiry in t he eyes of law . I nst ead of analysing t he evidence, exam ining wit nesses, or arriving at independent findings, t he report m erely r eproduced t he r eply of t he Appellant in a m echanical fashion. Such a report , it was subm it t ed, cannot be t reat ed as a valid inquiry report and is incapable of sust aining a m aj or penalt y.

15. Lear ned counsel for t he Appellant furt her subm it t ed t hat t he show cause not ice dat ed 27.02.2021, purport edly issued aft er receipt of t he inquiry report , was also dealt wit h in a per funct ory m anner . The Appellant filed her det ailed reply on

15.03.2021, raising serious fact ual and legal obj ect ions t o t he inquiry report and cont est ing t he charges lev elled against her.

16. Howev er t he learned counsel t he Appellant cont ended, wit hin t hree day s, t he disciplinar y aut horit y passed Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 5 Ashish Naithani, J. t er m inat ion order dat ed 18.03.2021, wit hout even t he advert ing t o her defence. This sequence clearly dem onst rat es t hat t he aut horit y had pr e- det er m ined t he penalt y of dism issal and t hat t he opport unit y grant ed t o t he Appellant was an em pt y for m alit y.

17. I t was also urged t hat t he lear ned Single Judge err ed in br ushing aside t hese glaring lapses as “ m inor deficiencies.” According t o t he learned counsel, non- considerat ion of t he r eply of t he delinquent em ploy ee and non- recor ding of independent findings by t he I nquir y Officer st rik e at t he root of t he proceedings and render t hem v oid. Such defect s cannot be cat egorized as m inor, for t hey const it ut e a serious infract ion of bot h t he st at ut ory rules and t he principles of nat ural j ust ice.

18. I t was em phasized t hat denial of a m eaningful inquiry and non- considerat ion of her reply caused m anifest prej udice t o t he Appellant . The principles of nat ural j ust ice are not em pt y for m alit ies but guarant ees of fair ness in decision- m aking. Once pr ej udice is dem onst rat ed, t he pr oceedings cannot be saved on t he ground of “ subst ant ial com pliance.”

19. Lear ned counsel for t he Appellant highlight ed t hat t he Appellant had r endered m or e t han t went y years of cont inuous service, during which her probat ion had been com plet ed, she w as confir m ed, and she was grant ed select ion grade pay. These service m ilest ones, it was subm it t ed, est ablish her st at us as a perm anent and confirm ed em ployee, ent it led t o t he full safeguards of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. The lear ned Single Judge, in holding t hat she was disent it led t o such prot ect ion on t he ground of alleged fraud, Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 6 Ashish Naithani, J. com m it t ed a grav e error, as neit her t he t erm inat ion order nor t he count er affidavit filed by t he St at e cont ains any cat egorical finding t hat her init ial appoint m ent w as fraudulent .

20. Lear ned counsel for t he Appellant em phasized t hat fraud cannot be presum ed; it m ust be est ablished on cogent m at erial. I n t he present case, t her e is no finding recorded by t he disciplinary aut horit y t hat t he Appellant had procur ed her appoint m ent by fr audulent m eans. Absent such a finding, t he learned Single Judge was not j ust ified in equat ing t he Appellant ’s case wit h cases of pr oven fraud, such as t hose involving forged degrees or false cast e cert ificat es. The Appellant ’s appoint m ent , it was urged, was m ade aft er due select ion process, and her long and unblem ished ser vice r ecor d m ilit at es against any such presum pt ion.

21. Lear ned counsel for t he Appellant furt her subm it t ed t hat t he punishm ent im posed upon t he Appellant is wholly disproport ionat e. Having serv ed t he Depart m ent for m ore t han t wo decades wit hout any blem ish, her sudden t er m inat ion, founded on a defect ive inquiry , is arbit rary and inequit able. I t was urged t hat in service j urisprudence, t he punishm ent m ust be com m ensurat e wit h t he m isconduct proved, and in absence of any proven charge, dism issal from service is unsust ainable.

22. On t hese subm issions, lear ned counsel t he Appellant prayed t hat t he im pugned j udgm ent of t he learned Single Judge dat ed 03.10.2024 be set aside, t hat t he t erm inat ion or der dat ed 18.03.2021 be quashed, and t hat t he Appellant be reinst at ed in service wit h cont inuit y and all consequent ial benefit s. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 7 Ashish Naithani, J.

23. Per cont ra, lear ned Addit ional Chief St anding Counsel appearing for t he St at e defended bot h t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 03.10.2024 as w ell as t he t er m inat ion order dat ed 18.03.2021. I t was subm it t ed t hat t he Appellant was nev er ent it led t o t he relief she seeks, as her v ery ent ry int o service was t aint ed and irr egular.

24. Mr. P. C. Bisht , learned Addit ional Chief St anding Counsel, ur ged t hat t he case of t he Appellant cannot be viewed in isolat ion but m ust be seen in t he wider cont ext of syst em ic irregularit ies uncovered in t he Educat ion Depart m ent . Several appoint m ent s of Assist ant Teachers wer e secur ed t hrough forged or fabricat ed docum ent s, and t he Appellant , according t o t he Depart m ent , falls wit hin t he sam e class of em ployees. I t was subm it t ed t hat perm it t ing such appoint m ent s t o subsist would not only under m ine t he credibilit y of public em ploym ent but would also send a dam aging m essage t o honest candidat es who secur e post s t hrough legit im at e m eans.

25. I t was argued t hat t he principle of law is firm ly set t led t hat if t he foundat ion of an appoint m ent is illegal, such appoint m ent confers no legal right . An appoint ee w hose ent ry int o service it self is vit iat ed by fraud or illegalit y cannot claim t he prot ect ion of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion, nor can he or she claim t o have acquired any v est ed right by virt ue of lengt h of ser vice. I n t his regard, learned counsel relied on t he well- est ablished principle t hat fraud vit iat es all solem n act s and no equit y can be claim ed by an em ployee w hose very foundat ion is unlawful. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 8 Ashish Naithani, J.

26. Lear ned Addit ional C. S. C subm it t ed t he t hat disciplinary proceedings against t he Appellant w ere, in fact , conduct ed st rict ly in accordance wit h t he pr escribed pr ocedur e. A charge sheet w as serv ed upon her, an I nquiry Officer was duly appoint ed, and she was affor ded an opport unit y t o file her writ t en r eply .

27. Ther eaft er , a show cause not ice w as issued, providing her wit h an addit ional chance t o ex plain why punishm ent should not be im posed. Accor ding t o t he St at e, t hese st eps clearly dem onst rat e t hat t he principles of nat ural j ust ice were com plied wit h in subst ance, and t he Appellant cannot be hear d t o com plain m erely because she is dissat isfied wit h t he conclusions drawn.

28. I t was furt her ur ged t hat t he lapses highlight ed by t he Appellant , such as t he br evit y of t he inquiry r eport or t he non- discussion of her reply in t he t erm inat ion order, ar e at best procedural irr egularit ies t hat did not cause any pr ej udice.

29. The learned Single Judge, t herefor e, correct ly held t hat t hese deficiencies were not subst ant ial enough t o vit iat e t he proceedings. Lear ned counsel t he Respondent subm it t ed t hat t he court s m ust t ake a pragm at ic view , especially wher e t he allegat ions are grave and go t o t he root of eligibilit y, and t hat hy per- t echnical obj ect ions cannot be allowed t o defeat t he ends of j ust ice.

30. Em phasising t he posit ion of t eacher s in societ y, learned counsel t he Respondent subm it t ed t hat an individual ent r ust ed wit h shaping t he m inds of children m ust be above suspicion. Once doubt s ar ose about t he genuineness Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 9 Ashish Naithani, J. of t he Appellant ’s appoint m ent docum ent s, her cont inuance in service becam e unt enable. The Depart m ent , it w as ur ged, could not be com pelled t o ret ain in it s fold an em ploy ee whose very ent ry was under a cloud.

31. Lear ned counsel t he Respondent furt her subm it t ed t hat sy m pat hy or equit able considerat ions hav e no place w hen t he quest ion is one of fraudulent or illegal ent ry int o public service. The Supr em e Court has r epeat edly held t hat long year s of service cannot legit im ize an appoint m ent t hat was void at incept ion. To per m it ot herwise would am ount t o perpet uat ing illegalit y and er ode public confidence recr uit m ent t o gov ernm ent service.

32. On t hese subm issions, lear ned counsel for t he St at e prayed t hat t he j udgm ent of t he learned Single Judge dat ed

03.10.2024 be upheld, and t hat t he present appeal be dism issed as devoid of m erit .

33. Having heard learned counsel for t he part ies and upon car eful per usal of t he r ecor d, t his Court finds t hat t he disciplinary proceedings culm inat ing in t he t erm inat ion order dat ed 18.03.2021 suffer from fundam ent al procedural defect s. The first and for em ost quest ion t hat arises is whet her t he inquiry proceedings conform ed t o t he st at ut ory requirem ent s of Rule 7 of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 ( hereinaft er, “ t he 2003 Rules” ) , as am ended in 2010, and w het her t he Appellant w as afforded a m eaningful opport unit y of defence. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 10 Ashish Naithani, J.

34. Rule 7 of t he 2003 Rules pr escribes t he m andat ory procedure im posing m aj or penalt ies. The schem e envisages: Sub- rule ( 2) : fram ing of definit e and dist inct art icles of char ge, accom panied by a st at em ent of im put at ions, a list of wit nesses, and docum ent s proposed t o be relied upon; Sub- rule ( 4) : grant ing t he delinquent em ployee a reasonable opport unit y t o subm it a writ t en st at em ent of defence; Sub- rules ( 6) t o ( 12) : conduct ing a regular inquiry , w hich requires— product ion of evidence by t he Depar t m ent , exam inat ion of wit nesses in support of t he char ges, opport unit y of cross- exam inat ion t o t he delinquent , libert y t o adduce defence evidence, and subm ission of a report by t he I nquir y Officer wit h findings on each art icle of char ge. This st at ut ory fr am ework is not direct ory but m andat ory, since it em bodies t he safeguards enshrined in Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, ensuring t hat no gover nm ent serv ant is dism issed or rem ov ed wit hout due process.

35. I n t he pr esent case, t he inquir y report dat ed

11.02.2021 does not sat isfy even t he m inim um r equirem ent s of Rule 7. I nst ead of analysing t he oral or docum ent ar y evidence, exam ining wit nesses, or recor ding independent findings, t he I nquiry Officer m er ely reproduced t he r eply furnished by t he Appellant . Ther e is no discussion of whet her Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 11 Ashish Naithani, J. t he charges st ood proved, no evaluat ion of t he docum ent s, and no reasoning on t he m erit s of t he allegat ions. An inquiry report which fails t o ret urn findings on t he art icles of charge is, in t he eye of law, no inquiry r eport at all.

36. The Supr em e Court has consist ent ly held t hat an I nquiry Officer funct ions as a quasi- j udicial aut horit y and is dut y- bound t o r ecord clear and r easoned findings. I n Union of I ndia v. H.C. Goel, AI R 1964 SC 364, t he Court em phasised t hat an inquiry r eport m ust cont ain a definit e conclusion on whet her t he char ges ar e proved, support ed by reasons and reference t o evidence. The report in t he pr esent case, being a m echanical r eproduct ion of t he delinquent ’s defence wit hout evaluat ion, st ands squarely condem ned by t hese principles.

37. Equally significant t he m anner in w hich t he Appellant ’s r eply t o t he show cause not ice dat ed 27.02.2021 was dealt wit h. The Appellant subm it t ed a det ailed reply on

15.03.2021, raising subst ant ive obj ect ions t o t he inquiry report and point ing out specific fact ual and procedural infirm it ies. Yet , wit hin t hree day s, t he disciplinary aut horit y passed t he t erm inat ion or der dat ed 18.03.2021.

38. The order is silent on t he cont ent ions raised by t he Appellant and does not record any reasons as t o why her defence was rej ect ed. The requir em ent of considering t he delinquent ’s r epr esent at ion is a subst ant ive safeguard. The right t o m ake a r epr esent at ion against t he inquiry r eport and t o have it considered by t he disciplinary aut horit y is a facet of t he principles of nat ural j ust ice. These rulings under score t hat considerat ion of t he em ployee’s reply is not a m at t er of for m but of subst ance. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 12 Ashish Naithani, J.

39. The sequence of event s in t he present case nam ely , t he filing of t he Appellant ’s r eply on 15.03.2021 and t he passing of t he t erm inat ion or der on 18.03.2021 wit hout any engagem ent wit h her defence bet ray undue hast e and r eveal a pre- det erm ined m ind. This is cont rary t o t he doct rine of audi alt eram part em , which r equires t hat t he aut horit y m ust apply it s m ind t o t he explanat ion offered and assign r easons for it s rej ect ion befor e im posing a m aj or penalt y.

40. I n light of t hese deficiencies, t his Court const rained t o hold t hat t he inquir y proceedings against t he Appellant w er e not conduct ed in accordance wit h Rule 7 of t he 2003 Rules. Bot h t he inquiry report dat ed 11.02.2021 and t he t erm inat ion or der dat ed 18.03.2021 are unsust ainable, being in br each of st at ut ory m andat e as w ell as t he principles of nat ural j ust ice.

41. The next cont ent ion raised by t he St at e is t hat t he Appellant ’s appoint m ent was t aint ed and t her efore void ab init io, disent it ling her from t he prot ect ion of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. This Court is unable t o accept t he said subm ission for t he r easons t hat follow. Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion m andat es t hat no per son who is a m em ber of a civil service of t he Union or of a St at e, or who holds a civil post under t he Union or a St at e, shall be dism issed, r em oved, or reduced in rank except aft er an inquiry in which he or she has inform ed of t he char ges and given a reasonable opport unit y of being heard.

42. The prot ect ion of Art icle 311 can only be denied if t he v ery foundat ion of em ploym ent is conclusively shown t o be Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 13 Ashish Naithani, J. fraudulent or illegal. I n t he pr esent case, neit her t he t erm inat ion order dat ed 18.03.2021 nor t he count er affidavit filed in Writ Pet it ion No. 514 of 2021 ( S/ S) records any cat egorical finding t hat t he Appellant procur ed appoint m ent by fraudulent m eans. Allegat ions w ere indeed m ade about t he aut hent icit y of her docum ent s, but no definit ive conclusion was reached t he disciplinar y proceedings on t he basis of cogent evidence. Absent such a finding, it is not perm issible t o hold t hat her appoint m ent was fraudulent .

43. Fraud, as a legal concept , vit iat es ev ery solem n act , but it m ust be specifically pleaded, st rict ly proved, and clearly recorded. The Suprem e Court in A .P. Pu b l i c Se r v i ce Co m m i s si o n v . B . Sa r a t Ch a n d r a , ( 1 9 9 0 ) 2 SCC 6 6 9 , held t hat a finding of fr aud cannot be inferred on m er e suspicion.

44. No such proof has been est ablished in t he pr esent case. On t he cont rary, t he recor d dem onst rat es t hat t he Appellant was duly select ed by t he com pet ent aut horit y, was appoint ed as an Assist ant Teacher, successfully com plet ed her probat ion, and w as t her eaft er confirm ed in service. She was also grant ed t he benefit of select ion grade pay upon com plet ion of t en years of ser vice. These m ilest ones reflect recognit ion by t he Depart m ent it self of her st at us as a per m anent gover nm ent serv ant . Once such st at us is confer red, t he Appellant becam e ent it led t o t he full safeguards of Art icle 311, and her r em oval could only have been effect ed aft er a procedurally valid inquiry .

45. The cont ent ion of t he St at e t hat t he lapses in t he inquiry process w ere m inor and did not cause pr ej udice also Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 14 Ashish Naithani, J. cannot be sust ained. As discussed earlier, t he inquir y report was devoid of findings, and t he Appellant ’s reply was not consider ed at all. These are not m inor irregularit ies but defect s going t o t he ver y r oot of t he disciplinary process.

46. I n St a t e o f Ut t a r Pr a d e sh v . Sa r o j K u m a r Si n h a , ( 2 0 1 0 ) 2 SCC 7 7 2 , t he Supr em e Court observ ed t hat an inquiry conduct ed in violat ion of m andat ory procedur e and wit hout affor ding adequat e opport unit y is a nullit y. Applying t he sam e principle here, t he pr esent proceedings ar e liable t o be quashed. This Court is furt her guided by t he doct rine of proport ionalit y, w hich has been fir m ly ent r enched in service j urispr udence.

47. The Appellant had render ed m or e t han t wo decades of service, and t here is not hing on recor d t o suggest t hat her service record was blem ished. To visit her wit h t he ext r em e penalt y of dism issal, based not on proven m isconduct but on a procedurally flaw ed inquiry , is gr ossly disproport ionat e and arbit rary. This Court is m indful t hat sym pat hy cannot override legalit y in service m at t ers.

48. Howev er , once t he st at ut ory rules and const it ut ional safeguards under Art icle 311 have been violat ed, t he t erm inat ion cannot sust ained. Equit y proport ionalit y support t he view t hat a confir m ed governm ent servant cannot be rem ov ed wit hout adherence t o due process.

49. For t he reasons st at ed above, t his Court concludes t hat t he finding of t he learned Single Judge t hat t he Appellant was disent it led t o t he prot ect ion of Art icle 311 because her appoint m ent was t aint ed is not bor ne out from t he r ecord. I n Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 15 Ashish Naithani, J. t he absence of a cat egorical finding of fraud, t he Appellant is ent it led t o invoke Art icle 311. Her rem oval from service wit hout com pliance wit h Rule 7 of t he 2003 Rules and t he principles of nat ur al j ust ice is t her efore unsust ainable. ORD ER I n view of t he for egoing discussion, t his Court finds t hat t he t erm inat ion of t he appellant ’s services by order dat ed

18.03.2021 was passed in breach of Rule 7 of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Serv ant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 ( as am ended in 2010) and in violat ion of t he principles of nat ural j ust ice. The disciplinary inquir y, being no inquiry in t he ey es of law, could not form t he basis for im posing a m aj or penalt y. The im pugned j udgm ent dat ed

03.10.2024 rendered by t he lear ned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion No. 514 of 2021 ( S/ S) is accordingly set aside. The t erm inat ion or der dat ed 18.03.2021 passed by t he Dist rict Educat ion Officer , Udham Singh Nagar, is quashed. The appeal is, accordingly , allowed. No order as t o cost s. __________________________ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. __________________ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 31 st July, 2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf63 9b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F1 8FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Special Appeal No. 52 of 2025, “Smt. Kakuli Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand” 16 Ashish Naithani, J.