Advocates:
['VIVEK SHUKLA', '', 'BHUWNESH JOSHI', 'PIYUSH GARG', 'PRIYANSHU GAIROLA', 'C S C', 'DR KARTIKEY HARI GUPTA', 'AJAY VEER PUNDIR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

AND

SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 280 OF 2020

01^ST APRIL, 2022

BETWEEN:

Anita Sharma

…..Petitioner.

And

State of Uttarakhand & others

….Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner

:

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned

counsel.

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand :

Mr.

S.S.

Chaudhary,

learned

Brief Holder for the State.

Counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4:

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned

counsel with Mr. Rafat Munir Ali,

learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no.10.

:

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned

counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the

following

JUDGMENT: (per SRI S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.)

In this case, the petitioner has prayed for issuance

of a writ of certiorari quashing and setting-aside the

impugned order dated 24.08.2020, Annexure No.1, by which

the respondent No.7 has given compulsory retirement to the

petitioner. She assails the order passed by the Committee of

Management of the BSM (PG) College, Roorkee, which is

affiliated

to

the

Hemwati

Nandan

Bahuguna

Garhwal

2

University (hereinafter referred to as “the University” for

brevity).

2.

The facts of the case are not in dispute at this

stage. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English

in the BSM PG College, Roorkee in District Saharanpur (now

Haridwar). After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand on

09.11.2000, the BSM (PG) College, Roorkee was functioning

within the State of Uttarakhand. On 19.01.2015, an inquiry

committee was setup by the Committee of Management of

the BSM (PG) College, Roorkee, District Haridwar regarding

certain alleged misconduct against the petitioner. The

allegation was that the petitioner while remaining absent in

the college, attended a seminar on 30-31^st March, 2012 in

Lansdowne, and despite being out of station simultaneously

put her signature in the relevant attendance register.

However, such inquiry never came to its logical conclusion.

On 11.02.2019, the respondent No.10 sent a letter bearing

No.236/2018-19 dated 11.02.2019 stating therein that he

gave a report to the Secretary of the Committee of

Management of the said college. It is alleged that the

petitioner was not properly heard and not given an

opportunity of representing her case before the respondent

No.10. On 16.02.2019, being aggrieved, the petitioner,

sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005

from the respondent No.10. On 20.08.2020, for the first time,

3

a notice was issued to the petitioner with a direction to

appear before the Principal of the college on 21.08.2020 at

12.00 noon. On 21.08.2021, the petitioner appeared before

the Principal, and prayed for 15 days’ time to place her

defence. On 24.08.2020, the Inquiry Committee issued the

order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Hence,

this writ petition.

3.

The primary arguments advanced by Mr. Piyush

Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, are as follows:-

Firstly,

the

principle

of

natural

justice

has

completely been violated in this case. Hence, the order

passed by the respondent No.7 is liable to be quashed

and set-aside.

Secondly, the order of compulsory retirement,

passed by the respondent No.7, is de hors jurisdiction.

As the Rules guiding the service conditions of the

petitioner do not provide for any punishment of

compulsory retirement.

4.

Admittedly, in this case, the punishment of

compulsory

retirement

is

inflicted

on

the

petitioner

purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under the

Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, 1942, as applicable to the

State of Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”

for brevity). However, the State of Uttarakhand, in its

4

counter-affidavit, has stated in Paragraph No.6 that the

Fundamental Rules are not application to priva