Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3922 (UTT)

AJAB SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/167/2017 · 2025-03-20

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1951-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 167 of 2017 Ajab Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for State : : Mr. Parikshit Saini and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, Advocates. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Petitioner has challenged the judgment rendered by learned Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal on 09.02.2017; order passed by Disciplinary Authority on 13.02.2015; and the order passed by Appellate Authority on 06.06.2016 in this Writ Petition. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been serving as a Fireman in Uttarakhand Police Fire Service. He was transferred from Kotdwar (Pauri Garhwal) to Nainital, vide order dated 29.07.2014. Petitioner challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2014 and learned Single Judge of this Court on 08.08.2014 passed an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the said transfer order, qua the petitioner and the writ petition was ultimately allowed 1 2025:UHC:1951-DB vide judgment dated 07.10.2014. Petitioner submitted a copy of the stay order passed by this Court before Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, and Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.08.2014, alleging that petitioner was required to report for the duties at the transferred place i.e. Nainital up to 08.08.2014, however, he failed to do so. 3. Thereafter, another notice was issued to petitioner on 24.10.2014, whereby, petitioner was asked to show cause, as to why punishment of censure may not be imposed upon him for his act of indiscipline in not reporting for duties at the transferred place within the joining time given to him. 4. Petitioner gave reply to both the show cause notices, denying the charges levelled against him, and he stated that the Hon’ble High Court passed a stay order on 08.08.2014, and since 09.08.2014 and 10.08.2014 were holidays on account of second Saturday and Sunday, therefore, certified copy of order could be obtained only on 11.08.2014. Petitioner appeared before Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal on 12.08.2014, and Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal also directed the petitioner to appear before the 2 2025:UHC:1951-DB I.G. Office, Dehradun, and petitioner thereafter went to I.G. Office, Dehradun and appeared before I.G. on 14.08.2014, and an entry to this effect was made in the register; Inspector General of Police, Dehradun instructed the petitioner to go back to Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal and report for duties there, and, petitioner immediately went to Kotdwar and participated in the Independence Day parade on 15.08.2014, and a certificate to this effect was also issued to him; petitioner remained at Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal throughout this period, requesting Fire Officer to permit him to resume duties; however, the Fire Officer permitted petitioner to join his duties only on 18.08.2014. Thus, he contended that there is no act of indiscipline committed by petitioner, and punishment of censure proposed against him is unsustainable. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, however, found the explanation offered by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, and imposed punishment of censure vide order dated 13.02.2015. By the same order, the Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal also provided for withholding of ten day’s salary of the petitioner for the period between 08.08.2014 to 17.08.2014. 3 2025:UHC:1951-DB 6. Petitioner challenged the said punishment order in Appeal, which was dismissed. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 45/DB/2016, which too was dismissed by the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Approaching a Court of Law for vindication of rights is no offence. From the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the language used in the notices issued to the petitioner, by the Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, it appears that he got annoyed due to petitioner approaching this Court against the transfer order. Since there is evidence available on record to indicate that certified copy of the stay order was supplied to the petitioner on 12.08.2014; regarding his appearance before the Inspector General of Police, Dehradun on 14.08.2014; regarding his participation in the Independence Day parade at Kotdwar on 15.08.2014, therefore, the view taken by Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, that the reply given by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, does not appear to be justified. Since an interim order was passed in favour of petitioner by this Court, therefore he cannot 4 2025:UHC:1951-DB be punished for not joining at the transferred place within the time given for the purpose. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, absence from duties for about ten days cannot be said to be unauthorized, so as to attract punishment of censure. Learned Tribunal, however, overlooked this aspect of the matter, and dismissed the Claim Petition by holding that it will not re-appreciate the evidence, while exercising power of judicial review. Since, there is no evidence to support the charge leveled against the petitioner, and he was able to offer valid justification for his absence, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 10. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The judgment rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, as well as by Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, are hereby quashed and set aside. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:20th March, 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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa 08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF 0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.03.25 13:39:03 +05'30'