Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/304/2009 of PRAKASH CHANDRA BALUTIA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and ANOTHER on 30 December 2010

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 304 of 2009 (S/B) Prakash Chandra Balutia ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Finance, Dehradun & another …Respondents Shri Pradeep Hariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 304 of 2009 (S/B)

Prakash Chandra Balutia

……Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary,

Department of Finance, Dehradun & another …Respondents Shri Pradeep Hariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Dated: 30thDecember, 2010

Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J.

Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)

A punishment of censure was inflicted upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said punishment, petitioner approached the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand. Before the Tribunal, no one made it clear under which law the punishment was inflicted. The Tribunal found that the principle of natural justice, however, had not been complied with. In those circumstances, Tribunal set aside the order impugned before it. Tribunal at the same time granted liberty to proceed for departmental proceeding afresh. Subsequent thereto, again a same order has been passed and thereby, the petitioner has been censured. Petitioner is, accordingly, before us.

2. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the punishment impugned in the present with petition has been inflicted after taking recourse to the provisions of Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. In terms thereof, before inflicting punishment, it is mandatory that a charge sheet be served upon the delinquent. Admittedly, no such charge sheet was issued after the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the order impugned being contrary to the law applicable to the subject, the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed to that extent.

impugned in the present with petition has been inflicted after taking recourse Rules, 2003. In terms thereof, before inflicting punishment, it is mandatory ( V.K. Bist, J. )

(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

30.12.2010 30.12.2010

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead