Reserved on 26.08.2025 Delivered on 08.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Service Bench No. 393 of 2019

26^th August, 2025

State of Uttarakhand ………..Petitioners

Versus

Neerja Yadav ..……….Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. P. S Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the petitioner/State.

No representation for the respondent.

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

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/State assailing the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun, whereby the Tribunal interfered with the punishment order of censure entry awarded to the respondent and substituted the same with ‘warned to

be careful in future’.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was posted as S.H.O., Mahila Police Station, Srinagar (Garhwal) from 17.07.2015 to 06.01.2019. A Zero FIR registered at P.S. Central Faridabad was transferred to District Pauri and ]entrusted to the respondent for investigation. The case was re-registered

as Case Crime No. 08 of 2017 under Sections 323, 342, 376 and 506 IPC (State vs. Abhishek Dangwal). The investigation was required to be carried out under the direct supervision of superior officers. However, for a continuous period of four months, i.e. from the month of January to April, 2018, no progress report of the matter was submitted by the respondent and the case diary reflected “Zero Progress.”

3. In view of the respondent’s failure to take appropriate steps in the matter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal ordered a preliminary inquiry. Notices dated 02.04.2018, 02.05.2018 and 21.05.2018 were duly issued by the disciplinary authority requiring the respondent to appear and record her statement. Even repeated telephone calls and reminders were made. However, the respondent did not cooperate and failed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority. On certain occasions, unsigned papers were sent, which were rightly disregarded. The conduct of the respondent, therefore, clearly reflected indiscipline and insubordination, besides negligence in the discharge of official duties.

4. The Disciplinary Authority submitted his report dated 11.06.2018 pointing out that despite repeated opportunities, the respondent neither participated in the inquiry nor furnished any satisfactory explanation. Acting on the said report, the competent authority issued two show cause notices dated 21.06.2018 and 17.07.2018, affording adequate opportunity to the respondent to explain her conduct. Despite service, the respondent chose not to submit any reply. Consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, by order dated 24.07.2018, awarded the minor punishment of ‘censure’. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed. However, the Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2019, diluted the punishment and directed that instead of a censure entry, the respondent be ‘warned to be careful in future’.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that the respondent/claim petitioner was awarded censure entry for negligence, indiscipline, and insubordination. The charge was that, despite pendency of Case Crime No. 08 of 2017, the respondent took no action for nearly three months and did not submit the monthly progress report of the case, resulting in “zero progress” from January to April 2018. Even after being issued a show cause notice, the respondent failed to reply. The respondent, however, explained that the investigation was delayed since the case was initially registered at Faridabad, later transferred to District Pauri, but the victim’s complete address was unavailable. After persistent efforts, she was finally able to contact the victim telephonically in January 2018. Accordi