2025:UHC:2314-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 28TH MARCH, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 80 OF 2025 Yashpal Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner. : Sri Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents. : Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sri Alok Mahra, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned State Counsel. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.03.2025, by which respondent no. 1 was not satisfied with the inquiry conducted against the petitioner, and has directed re- inquiry against him, and for appointment of an Inquiry Officer. A perusal of the order impugned would reveal that respondent no. 1 was of the view, that in view of the revenue interest, the matter is required to be re-inquired, 2025:UHC:2314-DB 2 with respect to the charge-sheet dated 22.08.2023 issued to the petitioner. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that that the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, as well as one Sri Kuldeep Singh. Since both the employees were served with different charge- sheets, therefore, two different inquiries were conducted on the same set of charges, and the Inquiry Officer has submitted two Inquiry Reports. However, respondent no.1 has accepted the Inquiry Report, with respect to another deliquent Sri Kuldeep Singh, but has directed re-inquiry in the matter of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through Rule 9 of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 (as amended by Amendment Rules, 2010), and would submit that the respondents have not complied with Rule 9(1) of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 9(1) of the aforesaid Rules, insofar as it is relevant, reads as under : “9. Action on Inquiry Report— (1) The Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government Servant. The Inquiry Officer 2025:UHC:2314-DB 3 shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule-7.” 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is apparent that the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same, or any other Inquiry Officer, under intimation to the charged Government Servant, and, thereafter, the inquiry shall be proceeded from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. 6. After perusing the order impugned in the Writ Petition, it is apparent that no reasons have been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority to show, as to why it has ordered for re-inquiry in the matter of the petitioner, whereas on the same set of charges, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of another delinquent employee - Sri Kuldeep Singh. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to Rule 9(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the respondents is, hereby, quashed and set-aside. 2025:UHC:2314-DB 4 The respondents are directed to redo the matter, from the stage of consideration of the inquiry report, strictly as per the provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 28th March, 2025 Rahul