2025:UHC:6379-DB No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.289 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ petitioners. 2. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned for the respondent. 3. State has filed this writ petition challenging judgment dated 02.04.2014 rendered by Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.05/NB/2012. By the said judgment, Claim Petition filed by respondent challenging punishment of ‘Censure’ imposed by The Secretary Finance, Government of Uttarakhand, as affirmed in Appeal, was set aside on the ground that the representation made by respondent against censure entry was decided beyond period of 120 days, therefore, the decision taken on respondent’s representation is liable to be ignored. 4. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent has been given all benefits, including promotion, in compliance of the impugned judgment, therefore, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, do not 2025:UHC:6379-DB survive and the petition has become infructuous. 5. Perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal reveals that ‘punishment of censure’ was confused with ‘adverse entry’ and learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon The Uttaranchal Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 2002, which do not have any application in the present case. The Uttaranchal Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 2003 enumerates the penalties, which can be imposed upon Government Servants and Censure is a minor punishment, as provided in Rule 3(a-i) of the said Rules. 6. Thus, learned Tribunal was not right in applying the Rules which are applicable in the matter of adverse entry, to punishment of censure. However, from perusal of record, it is revealed that punishment of ‘censure’ was given to respondent by Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttarakhand and the appeal filed by respondent was also decided by Secretary, Finance, which could not have been done by him. Rule 11(1) of 2003 Rules provides that appeal shall lie before next higher authority. Rule 11(1) is reproduced below:- “11.Appeal— (1) Except the orders passed under these rules by 2025:UHC:6379-DB the Governor, the Government Servant shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.” 7. Even otherwise also no one can sit in judgment in appeal against his own order. Since, The Secretary imposed the punishment of censure, therefore, he could not have decided the appeal against his own order, as it is against the legal maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” which means that no one can be a judge in his own cause. 8. Thus while we do not agree with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal for allowing claim petition, however, we approve of the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal for a different reason, namely, The Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttarakhand could not have decided the appeal against his own order. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.07.2025 SS SUKHBAN T SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc 7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4 BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 10:06:19 +05'30'