HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI AND HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No. 319 of 2013 Rajveer Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:-

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Petitioner has challenged judgment dated 08.10.2012 rendered by Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 70 of 2010, whereby his claim petition challenging order of removal from service, was dismissed.

2. Petitioner was employed as conductor in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated 12.10.2004. He was also put under suspension vide order dated 06.10.2004.

3. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence in which he denied the charges, he also participated in the disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found petitioner guilty of the charges. Enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with show-

cause notice dated 07.03.2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner gave representation in response to the show-

cause notice which, however, was not considered and in the punishment order, disciplinary authority observed that petitioner did not submit any representation in response to the show-cause notice.

5. Petitioner filed Departmental Appeal against the punishment of removal imposed upon him. His appeal was dismissed by Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation on 29.01.2008. He then approached Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal; his Claim Petition was dismissed vide judgment dated

08.10.2012 which is impugned in this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of petitioner before the Appellate Authority and also before the learned Tribunal was that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the representation/reply to the show-cause notice given by him. He further submits that right to submit representation against enquiry report is a valuable right available to every charge-sheeted employee as he can highlight the discrepancies in the findings and can also persuade the Disciplinary Authority, not to accept the enquiry report on its face value.

7. He further submits that in the show-cause notice dated 07.03.2005 issued to petitioner, Disciplinary Authority mentioned that punishment of removal from service is to be imposed against the petitioner. He thus submits that Disciplinary Authority acted with pre- determined mind and he was not open to hear anything from the petitioner as is apparent from the show-cause notice.

8. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was not expected from the Disciplinary Authority who is expected to act dispassionately and objectively while passing the final order.

9. Learned counsel for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, however, submits that as per his record, petitioner did not submit reply to the show-cause notice. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority had simply informed the petitioner about the punishment likely to be imposed and had invited him to make representation so that he may dislodge the disciplinary authority from the tentative opinion formed by him.

10. This Court finds some substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. While issuing show-cause notice, Disciplinary Authority is not expected to form an opinion to punish the charge- sheeted officer. Such an opinion can be formed only after considering the representation against enquiry report submitted by charge-sheeted employee.

11. The Disciplinary Authority is suppose