JUDGMENT :

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by respondent no.1 by which the claim petition has been rejected by a cryptic order along with its effect and operation also and allow the claim petition in toto.

To issue order or direction or writ to declare the rules known as of the Subordinate Police Officer/Employee (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 as adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, which is running contrary to provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as which are against the law laid down by the Apex Court as ultra virus and unconstitutional and to be deleted from the statue book and further to direct the State Government to frame a uniform rule in respect of disciplinary matters in consonance with the constitutional provisions.

Issue appropriate writ, rule or direction appropriate in nature by declaring that being a court of first instance in the service matter the learned Public Service Tribunal must look into all facts and evidence while deciding a claim petition like a suit and should not restrict itself on the basis of self imposed restriction from not examining the veracity and correctness of the decision which are under challenge before it so the aggrieved person may not deprive to get justice on technical grounds.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, at the relevant time working as Constable in Police Station Vasant Vihar, Dehradun, was served with a show-cause notice dated 10.06.2010 alleging that certain complaint applications of one Smt. Rupali Aggarwal, though forwarded for inquiry, were not returned to the Complaint Cell after disposal, resulting in their pendency in official records. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 02.07.2010, contending that the Sub-Inspector directed him to forward the inquiry report directly to the court and, therefore, there was neither negligence nor wilful disobedience; thereafter, the disciplinary authority, passed an order dated 03.07.2010 awarding him the punishment of censure entry. His departmental appeal and revision were also dismissed. Thereafter, Claim Petition No. 41/SB/2013 was filed before the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun, which was dismissed on 05.11.2015, giving rise to the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation in the show cause notice was that the petitioner failed to return the complaint along with the investigation report to the complaint cell, due to which such complaints remained pending in the order books of the complaint cell. The petitioner, however, in his detailed reply dated 02.07.2010, specifically stated that he had acted on the direction of the Sub-Inspector to send the reports directly to the Court; that, this material fact was ignored by the disciplinary authority; that, without considering his reply, respondent no.4 passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2010, awarding a censure entry for 2010.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner’s appeal was rejected arbitrarily by respondent no.3 without proper application of mind. The report of A.S.P. (Karmik), filed before the revisional authority, clearly stated that there were procedural errors in the preliminary inquiry and no misconduct or mala fide on the part of the petitioner. Despite this, the revisional authority ignored these findings; that, the punishment was based solely on the preliminary inquiry, without examining any material witness, rendering the proceedings procedurally flawed.

5. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity by the disciplinary authority to present his case or cross examine material witnesses, which itself is contrary to law; that, the procedure adopted for imposing minor punishment was not genuine or