UKHC010086072020 2023:UHC:1421 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1014 of 2020 18th August, 2026 Praveen Ram Kohli ………..Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his termination order dated 20.07.2020, passed by respondent no.3-Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tanakpur, District-Champawat. 2. Learned counsel for the U.T.C. before proceeding on merit raised a preliminary objection that against the termination order dated 20.07.2020 a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Managing Director is available to the petitioner and the petitioner without availing that remedy has straightway come to this Court in the writ petition. 3. He relied upon the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 2015. Regulation 69 of the said Regulations is quoted hereunder:- “69. Appeal.–(1) An employee shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the appointing or any other authority. (2). An employee preferring an appeal shall do so in his name. The memorandum of appeal shall contain all material statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant. (3). The appeal shall not contain any intemperate 1 UKHC010086072020 2023:UHC:1421 language. Any appeal, which contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed. (4) The appeal shall be addressed to the appellate authority and submitted to the authority, against whose order it is referred through the normal proper channel. (5). The appeal shall be preferred within three months of the date of the order. An appeal preferred beyond three months but not beyond six months of the date of the order, may be accepted by the appellate authority if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. An appeal preferred beyond time shall be dismissed summarily.” 4. Having gone through the Regulations, this Court is of the view that statutory remedy is available to the petitioner of filing an appeal against the termination order dated 20.07.2020. 5. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. 6. This writ petition in original is relegated to the Appellate Authority to treat it as an appeal and to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of its receipt treating it to be within time. Office is directed to retain the copy of entire paper book of writ petition in records. 7. It is also made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case while passing this order. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.08.2026 SK 2 SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN Digitally signed by SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a29a2f80b93835a432d093afc472d9355959ee0ff878380 c645e17d546a24821, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=B505B049BA2FDAC35E7AE325DEE1505D6C35AF 3D290C229CDC609D61801E1E4F, cn=SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN Date: 2026.08.18 19:35:11 +05'30'