Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
RAJEEV UNIYAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSB 131 / 2019
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
WPSB No.131 of 2019 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. Ju d g m e n t : ( per Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.) Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel appearing t hrough V.C. and Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for pet it ioner 2. Mr. Devendra Singh Bora, learned St anding Counsel for St at e of Ut t arakhand/ respondent s. 3. Pet it ioner is serving as Sub I nspect or in Ut t arakhand Police. Minor penalt y of censure was im posed upon him by SSP, Nainit al vide order dat ed 29.03.2011. Pet it ioner challenged t he said punishm ent in an appeal, which was dism issed by I nspect or General of Police, Kum aoun Range, Nainit al vide order dat ed 20.10.2011. Pet it ioner challenged aforesaid t wo orders before Ut t arakhand Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Pet it ion No.08/ NB/ SB/ 2017. The claim pet it ion was dism issed by learned t ribunal vide j udgm ent dat ed 10.09.2018. Relevant ext ract of t he im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ 8. Pet it ioner, while serving as Sub I nspect or in t he year 2010 in CCR Haldwani, was sent for healt h check up in Base Hospit al, Haldwani on 12.09.2010, as per his st at em ent of being ill. His Rawanagi was ent ered in General Diary of Cit y Cont rol Room , but he did not m ake any m edical checkup eit her in t he Base Hospit al, Haldwani or in any ot her hospit al and on a false pret end of being ill, he
avoided t he Governm ent dut y of being deput ed at Nanda Devi Mela at Nainit al. He was also charged t o t ear t he pages of G.D. of Cit y Cont rol Room , Haldwani and t o ut t er t he words of disregard t o t he senior officers. A det ailed prelim inary inquiry was conduct ed by Addl. Superint endent of Police, Nainit al, in which pet it ioner was given full opport unit y of hearing. His st at em ent was also recorded by t he inquiry officer, wherein it was found t hat inst ead of get t ing m edically exam ined on 12.09.2010, he went t o his room for rest and cont radict ory st at em ent was given by him during t he course of inquiry. The inquiry report ( Annexure: 3) was prepared by t he inquiry officer on t he basis of st at em ent s of t he relevant wit nesses. Agreeing wit h t he inquiry report , a show cause not ice was issued t o t he pet it ioner and his reply t o t he show cause not ice was duly considered by respondent No.4 and t he im pugned punishm ent order was passed by him . Respondent No.4 specifically m ent ioned t hat t he explanat ion subm it t ed by t he pet it ioner was not sat isfact ory, hence, a 'censure ent ry was ordered t o be recorded in his charact er roll. The punishm ent order ( Annexure: 2) was passed aft er considering all t he fact s and circum st ances. 9. The appeal preferred by t he pet it ioner was t horoughly considered by t he appellat e aut horit y, respondent No.3, and all t he cont ent ions r aised by t he pet it ioner were dealt wit h and t hereaft er a reasoned order was passed on 20.10.2011 ( Annexure: 1) . 10. Pet it ioner did not file any pet it ion wit hin t he prescribed t im e of lim it at ion and t his pet it ion was filed on 25.04.2017, aft er a delay of about six years. However, t he pet it ioner has subm it t ed t hat he filed a revision ag
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
