Raj veer Singh v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i ) for Ut t arakhand Road Tr ansport

1. Pet it ioner challenged j udgm ent dat ed

08.10.2012 rendered by Ut t arakhand Public Service Tribunal in Claim Pet it ion No. 70 of 2010, whereby his claim pet it ion challenging order of rem oval service, was dism issed.

2. Pet it ioner was em ployed conduct or Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion. Disciplinary proceedings were init iat ed against him by issuing a charge sheet dat ed 12.10.2004. He was also put under suspension vide order dat ed 06.10.2004.

3. Pet it ioner subm it t ed his writ t en st at em ent of defence in which he denied t he charges, he also part icipat ed in t he disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found pet it ioner guilt y of t he charges. Enquiry report was supplied t o t he pet it ioner along wit h show- cause not ice dat ed 07.03.2005.

4. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner gave represent at ion in response t o t he show- 1 cause not ice which, however, was not considered and in t he punishm ent order, disciplinary aut horit y observed t hat pet it ioner did not subm it any represent at ion in response t o t he show- cause not ice.

5. Pet it ioner filed Depart m ent al Appeal against t he punishm ent of rem oval im posed upon him . His appeal was dism issed by Managing Direct or, Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion on 29.01.2008. He t hen approached Ut t arakhand Public Service Tribunal; his Claim Pet it ion was dism issed vide j udgm ent dat ed

08.10.2012 which is im pugned in t his writ pet it ion.

6. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat case of pet it ioner before t he Appellat e Aut hority and also before t he learned Tribunal was t hat t he Disciplinary Aut horit y failed t o consider t he represent at ion/ reply t o t he show- cause not ice given by him . He furt her subm it s t hat t o subm it represent at ion against enquiry report is a valuable right available t o every charge- sheet ed em ployee as he can highlight t he discrepancies in t he findings and can also persuade t he Disciplinary Aut horit y, not t o accept t he enquiry report on it s face value.

7. He furt her subm it s t hat in t he show- cause not ice dat ed 07.03.2005 issued t o pet it ioner, Disciplinary Aut horit y m ent ioned t hat punishm ent of rem oval from service is t o be im posed against t he pet it ioner. He t hus subm it s t hat Disciplinary Aut horit y act ed wit h pre- det erm ined m ind and he was not open t o hear anyt hing from t he pet it ioner as is apparent from t he show- cause not ice. 2

8. This, according t o learned counsel t he pet it ioner, was not expect ed t he Disciplinary Aut horit y who is expect ed t o act dispassionat ely and obj ect ively while passing t he final order.

9. Learned counsel for Ut t arakhand Transport Corporat ion, however, subm it s t hat as per his record, pet it ioner did not subm it reply t o t he show- cause not ice. He furt her subm it s t hat t he Disciplinary Aut horit y had sim ply inform ed t he pet it ioner about t he punishm ent likely t o be im posed and had invit ed him t o m ake represent at ion so t hat he m ay dislodge t he disciplinary aut horit y from t he t ent at ive opinion form ed by him .

10. This Court finds som e subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel t he pet it ioner. While issuing show- cause not ice, Disciplinary Aut horit y is not expect ed t o form an opinion t o punish t he charge- sheet ed officer. Such an opinion can be form ed only aft er considering t he represent at ion against enquiry report subm it t ed by charge- sheet ed em ployee.

11. The Disciplinary Aut horit y is supposed t o adopt a dispassionat e approach and he is required t o form opinion t o punish or not t o punish, only aft er considering t he enquiry report t he reply/ represent at ion given by charge- sheet ed officer t heret o.

12. The reply, if subm it t ed by pet it ioner wit hin t im e required t o be considered. The Disciplinary Aut horit y, however, has m ent ioned in t he final order 3 t hat no reply was subm it t ed by t he pet it ioner.

13. This aspect was highlight ed by pet it ioner before Appellat e Aut horit y and also before t he learned Tribunal; however, sam e was not considered. Thus, t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal and also t he order passed by Appellat e Aut horit y are int erferable.

14. For t he aforesaid reasons, we set aside t he im pugned j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal and t he order passed by Managing Direct or on pet it ioner ’s appeal, and rem it t he m at t er back t o t he Appellat e Aut horit y t o reconsider t he Depart m ent al Appeal filed by t he pet it ioner.

15. Decision on Appeal shall be t aken wit hin six m ont hs from dat e of receipt of cert ified copy of t his order wit h copy of t he Appeal. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. ____________________________ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 9 t h July, 2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d 1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B 1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 4