UDAY PRATAP SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(UK) 73

2012 (1) UAD 797
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwala
Writ Petition No. 1364 (S/S) of 2011
WITH Writ Petition No. 999 (S/S) of 2011, With Writ Petition No. 1365 (S/S) of 2011 with Writ Petition No. 1366 (S/S) of 2011
UDAY PRATAP SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.02.2012

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder

Headnote:(A) Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, Rule 4(1) and 7— On inquiry against a Government servant, he may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the inquiry at the discretion of the appointing authority u/r 4(1) of the Rules (as substituted by Amendment Rules of 2010) — Disciplinary authority required to mention in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned Government servant were so serious that in the event of these charges being established — A major penalty would be inflicted — But this provision not mandatory but directory — Suspension order cannot be vitiated only on the ground that the seriousness of the charge had not been mentioned in the suspension order. (Para 11)
       (B) Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, Rule 7 — If the Disciplinary Authority directs the Enquiry Officer to sign the charge sheet — Then such direction is patently erroneous and is in gross violation of Rule 7(ii) . (Para 13)
       (C) Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, Rule 7(6) and 7(8) — After submission of the reply to the charge sheet — It would be open to the disciplinary authority to inquire into the charges himself — Or may appoint an Enquiry Officer for the purpose of Sub-Rule (8) — Held — An Enquiry Officer can only be appointed after a reply has been submitted by the charged officer.
        (Para 14)
        ¼v½ mÙkjkapy ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 2003] fu;e 4¼1½ vkSj 7 & ,d ljdkjh lsod ds f[kykQ tkap ij mls fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds foosd ij fuyacu ds fu"d"kZ dks yafcr j[kk tk ldrk gS & rgr u/r 4(1)] fu;e 2003] ¼izfrLFkkfir la'kksfèkr fu;e] 2010½ vuq'kklukRed fuyacu vkns'k esa mYys[k gS fd lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod ds f[kykQ vkjksi bruk xaHkhj gS fd ml ij ,d cM+h Penalty yxkbZ tk,xh & ysfdu ;g izko/kku vfuok;Z ugha ijUrq funsZf'kr & ysfdu laLisa'ku ds vkns'k viHkz"V ugha D;ksafd vkjksi dh xaHkhjrk dk fuyacu vkns'k esa mYys[k ughaA ¼izLrj 11½

       ¼c½ mÙkjkapy ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 7 & ;fn vuq'kklukRed izkf/kdj.k iwNrkN vf/kdkjh dks funsZ'k fn, vkjksi i= ij gLrk{kj djus ds fy, & rc ,sls vkns'k lkQ rkSj ij xyr] vkSj fu;e 7(ii) dk mYya?kuA

        ¼izLrj 13½

       ¼l½ mÙkjkapy ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 7¼6½ vkSj 7¼8½ & vkjksi i= ds mÙkj dks izLrqr djus ds ckn & ;g vuq'kklukRed iwNrkN dk vf/kdkj nsrk gS vf/kdkjh dks & ;k og ,d iwNrkN vf/kdkjh dks fu;qDr djs mifu;e ¼8½ ds iz;kstu ds fy, & /kkfjr & ,d iwNrkN vf/kdkjh dks rHkh fu;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gS tc mÙkj pktZ vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gksA ¼izLrj 14½

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.S. Pundir, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

2. This group of petitions raise a common question and are being decided together. For facility, the facts in Writ Petition No. 1364 (S/S) of 2011 is being taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st April, 2011, by which an Enquiry Officer was appointed in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 20th July, 2011, by which the disciplinary authority suspended the petitioner and directed the Enquiry Officer to issue a charge sheet under his signature.

4. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Agriculture Officer Group II in the year 1994 and was posted under Project Officer (Agriculture), Pithoragarh. It is alleged that since 1994 till date, the petitioner has an unblemished record and that there is no adverse entry against him. In the year 2010, the petitioner was transferred from Haridwar to Chamoli and, since then, was working under the Chief Agriculture Officer, Chamoli. On 25th November, 2010, the Director, Agriculture, Uttarakhand, passed an order indicating that disciplinary proceedings was being initiated against certain employees including the petitioner on the basis of some complaint levelled against them with regard to the distribution of the seeds. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice denying the charge contending that he was not involved in the distribution of the seeds and that he was only required to receive the stock from the concerned agency and to hand over the said stock to the godown incharge. On 21st April, 2011, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer pending contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge sheet. The disciplinary authority, by an order dated 20th July, 2011, issued the suspension order and directed the Enquiry Officer to frame the charge sheet under his signature and proceed accordingly against the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, has filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned order on three grounds, namely, that the suspension order as well as the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was in gross violation of the Rules as amended from time to time. It was contended that under the amended Rules, the Enquiry Officer can only be appointed after the charge sheet is served and the charged officer denies the charge, whereas in the present case, the Enquiry Officer was appointed prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and also prior to the serving of the charge sheet. The learned counsel further submitted that under the suspension order, it is imperative and incumbent on the disciplinary authority to mention the gravity of the charge and the possibility of the imposition of a major penalty which had not been done and consequently, the issuance of the suspension order was in gross Violation of the amended Rule 4 of the Rules, It was also urged that the direction of the disciplinary authority to the Enquiry Officer to sign the charge sheet and serve the same upon the charged officer was wholly illegal and again in violation of the amended Rule 7 of the Rules.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit indicating that with regard to the distribution of the seeds during Kharif period 2010 to the agriculturists, the District Magistrate was directed to verify the distribution of the seeds. It transpires that the District Magistrate inspected the places and submitted a report to the Government, which indicated several irregularities in the distribution of the seeds. It was alleged that those persons who were prima facie found to be involved were transferred and directions for the initiat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document