HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 337 of 2021

05 March, 2025 State of Uttarakhand and another --Petitioners Versus Suresh Chandra --Respondent Presence:-

Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr.

G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C for the State/petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Girveer Chand, learned counsel for the respondent.

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2020 passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No.71/DB/2019, “Suresh Chandra Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another”.

2. By the said judgment, claim petition filed by respondent was partly allowed and the punishment imposed upon respondent was modified.

3. Operative portion of the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal is extracted below:-

“41. The claim petition is partly allowed and partly dismissed. Such part of the impugned order (Annexure:A1) which provides for the recovery of Rs.3478.89 is hereby affirmed. So far as the remaining part of the impugned order relating to stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is concerned, the same is hereby set aside.”

4. The judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal is challenged mainly on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that there are mitigating circumstances for interfering with the quantum of punishment, while there is no mitigating circumstance whatsoever for such interference.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon respondent vide order dated 07.05.2019 and recovery of ₹3,478.89/- was also ordered to be made from respondent by the same order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was set aside by the learned Tribunal, treating it to be excessive and only the order for recovery of ₹3,478.89/- was maintained. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, is impermissible as there is no finding returned by the learned Tribunal that the punishment imposed upon respondent was shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of charges against respondent, which is condition precedent for interfering with quantum of punishment.

7. In support of his first contention, learned State Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. K.S. Vishwanath, (2022) 15 SCC 190. Paragraph nos.20 and 21 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

“20. That thereafter this Court has observed and held in paras 7, 8 and 15 as under: (N. Gangaraj case [State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423: (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547] , SCC pp. 426 &

430)

“7. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the evidence led before the IO to return a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent stand proved.

8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed [State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4510] by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.

***

15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority. We may notice that the said judgm