Yashpal Singh v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and anot her

: Sri Abhij ay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel. Counsel for t he respondent s. : Sri B.S. Parihar, learned St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. …Respondent s JUD GM EN T : ( p e r Sr i A l o k M a h r a , J.) Heard learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, and t he learned St at e Counsel.

2. I n t his Writ Pet it ion, t he pet it ioner has challenged t he order dat ed 17.03.2025, by which respondent no. 1 was not sat isfied wit h t he inquiry conduct ed against t he pet it ioner, and has direct ed re- inquiry against him , and for appoint m ent of an I nquiry Officer. A perusal of t he order im pugned would reveal t hat respondent no. 1 was of t he view, t hat in view of t he revenue int erest , t he m at t er is required t o be re- inquired, 1 wit h respect t o t he charge- sheet dat ed 22.08.2023 issued t o t he pet it ioner.

3. The cont ent ion of t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, is t hat t hat t he inquiry was conduct ed against t he pet it ioner, as well as one Sri Kuldeep Singh. Since bot h t he em ployees were served w it h different charge- sheet s, t herefore, t wo different inquiries were conduct ed on t he sam e set of charges, and t he I nquiry Officer has subm it t ed t wo I nquiry Report s. However, respondent no.1 has accept ed t he I nquiry Report , wit h respect t o anot her deliquent Sri Kuldeep Singh, but has direct ed re- inquiry in t he m at t er of t he pet it ioner.

4. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner would t ake t his Court t hrough Rule 9 of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 ( as am ended by Am endm ent Rules, 2010) , and w ould subm it t hat t he respondent s have not com plied wit h Rule 9( 1) of t he aforesaid Rules. Rule 9( 1) of t he aforesaid Rules, insofar as it is relevant , reads as under : “ 9 . A ct i o n o n I n q u i r y Re p o r t — ( 1) The Disciplinary Aut horit y m ay, for reasons t o be recorded in writ ing, rem it t he case for re- inquiry t o t he sam e or any ot her I nquiry Officer under t he charged I nquiry Officer Governm ent Servant . The int im at ion t o 2 shall t hereupon proceed t o hold t he inquiry t he from such st age as direct ed by t he t o Disciplinary Aut horit y, according provisions of Rule- 7.”

5. From a perusal of t he aforesaid Rule, apparent t hat t he Disciplinary Aut horit y m ay, for reasons t o be recorded in writ ing, rem it t he case for re- inquiry t o t he sam e, or any ot her I nquiry Officer, under int im at ion t o t he charged Governm ent Servant , and, t hereaft er, t he inquiry shall be proceeded from such st age as direct ed by t he Disciplinary Aut horit y, according t o t he provisions of Rule 7.

6. Aft er perusing t he order im pugned in t he Writ Pet it ion, it is apparent t hat no reasons have been recorded by t he Disciplinary Aut horit y t o show, as t o why it has ordered for re- inquiry in t he m at t er of t he pet it ioner, whereas on t he sam e set of charges, t he Disciplinary Aut horit y has accept ed t he finding of t he I nquiry Officer in respect of anot her delinquent em ployee - Sri Kuldeep Singh.

7. Having regard t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, and having regard t o Rule 9( 1) of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, t he im pugned order dat ed 17.03.2025 passed by t he respondent s is, hereby, quashed and set - aside. 3 The respondent s are direct ed t o redo t he m at t er, from t he st age of considerat ion of t he inquiry report , st rict ly as per t he provisions of t he Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003.

8. Wit h t he aforesaid observat ions, t he Writ Pet it ion is disposed of. As a sequel t heret o, t he m iscellaneous pet it ions, if any pending, shall st and closed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN D A R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 28 t h March, 2025 Rahul 4