Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2023 DAILYLAW 767 (UTT)

RAJIV BHARTARI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/121/2023 · 2026-06-04

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.121 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. Petitioner is a member of Indian Forest Service. He has challenged a charge sheet issued to him by Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Uttarakhand. 4. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that petitioner has a statutory remedy of approaching Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. The said submission is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. As a member of Indian Forest Service petitioner has a remedy of approaching the Tribunal established under The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in fact, under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, a Central Administrative Tribunal is the court of first instance for Central Government Employees or members of All India Services. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to decide the case on merits; however, having regard to the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2023 and pleadings have been exchanged Registry is directed to transmit the record of this case to the Central Administrative Tribunal after keeping photocopy of the entire record, which shall be supplied by petitioner’s counsel. 8. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) SK 04.06.2026