2025:UHC:7254-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI Special Appeal No. 381 of 2016 Bhuwan Prakash Tiwari -Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Harshi Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) The Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital imposed penalty of reduction to a lower grade upon the appellant, vide order dated 15.04.2014, for the charge of dereliction of duty and acting against the interest of the State. Appellant challenged the punishment order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 752 of 2014, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16.11.2016. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against the said judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge on 16.11.2016. 2. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:- “3. One of the argument raised by the petitioner is that the charges itself were framed by the Inquiry Officer, and therefore, this could not have been done by the Inquiry Officer as this shows that the inquiry itself was not free from bias. As far as this argument of the petitioner is concerned, the same is without any basis as there is no specific pleading that the charges which are referred above were framed by the Inquiry Officer himself. 4. The fact of the matter is that merely if the charges have been handed over by the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent officer that itself would not amount to the fact that the charges have been framed by the Inquiry Officer itself. 5. The second argument of the petitioner is that it was not the duty of the Reader to get the signatures of the concerned lawyers. It is not merely a question of getting 1 2025:UHC:7254-DB signatures of the concerned lawyers, it is an admitted fact that the lawyers were not present on the due date. Their signatures are not on record. Moreover, the relevant factor is that there was no order of the Presiding Officer to serve the notices by “Dasti”, yet in order to circumvent, notices being sent through proper channel through the Registry of the office and the orders were passed by the Reader himself directing the plaintiff to serve notices by “Dasti”. This act on the part of the Reader ensures that none of the parties i.e. A.D.G.C. or the government counsels were aware of the notices being served at the relevant parties. 6. Considering the totality of the circumstances, no interference is being called for by this Court. The writ petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ” 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant was holding the position of Office Superintendent, and he was discharging duties as Reader in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bazpur (Udham Singh Nagar). A Suit, under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was filed by Kartar Chand and others against Nishant Singh and Others, for declaring them as bhumidhar in respect of certain land; the suit was numbered as Case No. 22/94, which was pending before the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Rudrapur and was transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Bazpur, vide order dated 27.02.2013. The allegation against appellant was that he did not make entry regarding notice of transfer to the defendants in the dispatch register, and he did not take care to ensure that notices are served upon all the parties; there is no report regarding service upon State of Uttarakhand, through Collector Udham Singh Nagar, in the file; there is nothing to indicate that District Government Counsel (Revenue) and the counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation were present in the Court on 23.03.2013, yet their presence was noted even though the order sheet do not bear their signature 2 2025:UHC:7254-DB Perusal of records reveals that Case No. 22/92 of 2012-13 was decreed ex-parte by learned Assistant Collector- I Class, vide judgment dated 30.03.2013. The Commissioner, Kumaon Division has filed counter affidavit before learned Single Judge stating that after receiving the record of Suit No. 22/92 of 2012-13, on transfer from other Court, it was duty of the appellant to ensure that summons are served upon State of Uttarakhand through Collector, and District Government Counsel is informed about transfer of the case, however, he failed to do so and he also did not inform the Presiding Officer of the Court that the notice is not served upon the defendants; in the order sheet, appellant wrongly mentioned that counsel for Uttarakhand State and Municipal Corporation are present, however, signatures of the counsels are nowhere to be found in the order sheet; appellant did not enter Case No. 22/92 of 2012-13 in the Case Diary for 23.03.2013, and he handed over dasti summons to the plaintiffs in the absence of any order by the Presiding Officer; and after service of charge-sheet, he procured affidavits from Harpal Singh and Harkewal Singh S/o Jagir Singh (plaintiffs in the Suit) for defending himself, which indicates that he was acting in collusion with plaintiffs in the Suit. Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition reveals that Harkewal Singh and Harpal Singh are plaintiff nos. 7 and 8 in Suit No. 22/92 of 2012-13 which was decreed by Assistant Collector 1st Class Bazpur on 30.03.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition; appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself and 3 2025:UHC:7254-DB Inquiry Officer was biased and his report was perverse. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that disciplinary inquiry was held as per applicable rules and adequate opportunity of defending himself was given to the appellant; the Inquiry Officer found him guilty, and based on findings recorded by Inquiry Officer, appellant was punished. He submits that disciplinary authority took a lenient view in the matter, or else the nature and gravity of charges would have warranted dismissal from service. He further submits that without petitioner’s help, Suit no. 22/92 of 2012- 13 could not have been decreed ex-parte. He submits that false entries were made by appellant in the order sheet on 23.03.2013 and within one week thereafter, the Suit was decreed ex-parte. 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition. One of the charge against appellant was that he made false entry in the order sheet of Suit No. 22/92 of 2012-13 for showing presence of counsels appearing for State and Municipal Corporation on 23.03.2013, and he also did not apprise the Presiding Officer that service could not be affected upon all the defendants, especially on the District Collector and Municipal Corporation, and due to acts of omission and commission of the appellant, the Suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed ex-parte against the State, and State land worth several crore rupees had gone to the plaintiffs, who were declared bhumidhar over the land involved in the Suit. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the land in question was recorded in Category 4, and bhumidari rights cannot be claimed by an individual or group of 4 2025:UHC:7254-DB individuals in respect of Category 4 land, as contended by learned State Counsel. 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, that principles of natural justice were violated and inquiry was not held as per norms, could not be substantiated by him. Charge-sheet was issued to appellant containing two charges, to which appellant replied and thereafter a disciplinary inquiry was held as per Rules in which appellant was given adequate opportunity of defending himself. 9. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for not interfering with the punishment order. Thus any interference with the impugned judgment would not be warranted. The Special Appeal thus fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. __________________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 18th August, 2025 Shiksha 5 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.08.26 10:22:28 +05'30'