Reserved on 25.08.2025 Delivered on 08.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Service Bench No. 103 of 2016

25^th August, 2025

Virendra Singh Aswal …………..Petitioner

Versus

Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand

And others ……….Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. M C Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Vasistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)

The present petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking

the following reliefs:

(i) “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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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 prelimin