2026:UHC:3747 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 2 1 8 1 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is serving as Senior Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Okhalkanda, District Nainital. Special Adverse Entry was recorded against him by Director General vide order dated 04.08.2021. Petitioner made representation against Special Adverse Entry, which was rejected. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Special Adverse Entry has been given to the petitioner for a work, which was not assigned to him and it was the responsibility of some other employee. He further submits that Medical Officer was not given any Special Adverse Entry and petitioner alone was singled out of Special Adverse Entry. 5. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that the work and performance of the petitioner was found to be wanting. He submits that perusal of Special Adverse Entry, recorded by Director General, itself indicates that petitioner was grossly negligent in discharging his duty. He submits that due to his negligence, payment of retiral dues to the employee of Medical Department was delayed and the employee concerned had to approach the Human Right Commission. He submits that 2026:UHC:3747 petitioner did not cooperate with the audit team, as a result, the expenditure of 219.85 lakh made in Primary Health Centre, Okhalkanda, under various Schemes, could not be certified. He thus submits that there was sufficient material available before the Director General for recording Special Adverse Entry. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show cause notice was not given to the petitioner before recording Special Adverse Entry. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that there is no requirement of issuing show cause notice while recording Adverse Entry or Special Adverse Entry, as it is a subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Adverse Entry or Special Adverse Entry is not a penalty under Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as it is based on assessment of work and conduct of a Government Servant, therefore, the requirement of giving show cause notice cannot be added. Even though there is a element of subjectivity in recording an Adverse Entry, but that in itself will not be sufficient to set it aside, unless it is proved that there was no material available on record to award an Adverse Entry. 9. Thus, there is no scope of interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 15.05.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.05.15 04:03:45 -07'00' 2026:UHC:3747