State of Uttarakhand v. Praveen Kumar

UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE PANKAJ PUROHI T

UWrit Petition (S/B) No. 773 of 2024 U20UPUth UPU December, 2024

State of Uttarakhand and others --Petitioners

Versus

Praveen Kumar

--Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UPresence: - Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for petitioners/ State of Uttarakhand ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g: UJUDGMENT: U ( per Hon 'ble Th e Act in g Ch ief Ju st ice Sr i Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

¶1State has filed this writ petition, challenging judgment dated 08.01.2024, rendered by Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 71/ N.B./ S.B./ 2020. By said judgment, punishment of censure imposed respondent also appellate order passed by D.I.G. Kuman Range, were set aside and Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, was directed to expunge the entry regarding said punishment from the service book of respondent.

¶2In the year 2018, while respondent was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station, Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, an FIR No. 101 of 2018 under Section 60 of Excise Act, was registered there and investigation was handed over to respondent. After investigation respondent prepared a chargesheet, which was handed over to the concerned clerk in

Nanakmatta Police Station. The chargesheet could not be found for some months and a notice was issued to respondent, asking him to show-cause as to why punishment of censure may not be imposed upon him for his negligence in the matter. In other words, respondent was held prima facie responsible for the lapse of not maintaining the charge sheet in the file.

¶3Respondent refuted the allegation made against him in his reply to the show-cause notice. He contended that a government employee can be punished only for a misconduct and the allegation made against him do not constitute misconduct. Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, imposed punishment of censure upon respondent vide order dated 25.01.2020.

¶4Respondent challenged said punishment in a departmental appeal. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by D.I.G., Kumaon Range vide order dated

27.04.2020. Thus, feeling aggrieved, respondent approached Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal; his claim petition was allowed by learned Tribunal by impugned judgment which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶6From perusal of impugned judgment, it is revealed that chargesheet in question was found in old files, lying in the concerned Police Station and entry to this effect was also made in the concerned register on

20.09.2019. Thus, charge levelled against respondent gets washed off with recovery of the charge sheet in question from some other file of the Police Station.

¶7Learned Tribunal has also considered discussed the contradictions in the enquiry report submitted by Circle Officer, Khatima and also the order passed by D.I.G. Kumaon Range on 27.04.2020.

¶8From perusal of impugned judgment, it is revealed that punishment of censure was given by Senior Superintendent of Police to respondent on 25.01.2020, even though the chargesheet was recovered from the old files in the Police Station, on 20.09.2019. The appellate authority has also overlooked this material aspect while deciding the appeal.

¶9We concur with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal for setting aside the punishment order and the order passed by Appellate Court. Merely because chargesheet could not be found for some time, not be a valid ground for imposing punishment respondent. Even otherwise also, as Investigating Officer, respondent was required to do investigation and prepare chargesheet, however, he was not expected to maintain the chargesheet in safe custody at all times and like any other record, maintaining chargesheet is the responsibility of ministerial employees.

¶10Learned Tribunal has taken note of the statement made by Ms. Priyanka Chanyal, lady constable (ministerial), where she admits that chargesheet in

question, was kept in the concerned file maintained in computer room and she also made entry regarding chargesheet in Register No. 4. The said statement is sufficient to establish innocence of the respondent as chargesheet was handed over by him to the concerned clerk who made entry regarding chargesheet in the relevant register, therefore, respondent cannot be punished for any lapse on the part of other employee due to which the chargesheet could not be found for some time.

¶11Thus viewed, learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside punishment imposed respondent. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal.

¶12Accordingly, Writ petition fails is dismissed.

___________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI , A.C.J.

_________________________

PANKAJ PUROHI T, J.

Dt: 20 Pth P December, 2024 Mahinder MAHIND ER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6c a168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5C DD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2 B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2024.12.26 18:02:38 +05'30'