WPMS/3255/2015 of Gopal Das Gupta Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 23 December 2015

Conclusion

WPMS No.3255 of 2015

Hon’ble U. C. Dhyani, J.

Mr. S. R. S. Gill, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel present for the State / respondents.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.1.

After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that the respondent no.1 be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, at the earliest. Learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State has no objection, if such direction is issued to the respondent no.1.

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing that if the petitioner moves a fresh representation before the respondent no.1 within a week from today, the respondent no.1 shall reconsider and decide the same, by a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, at an early date, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the respondent no.1 shall pass a fresh order untrammeled by his earlier order dated 23.10.2015. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself, on payment of usual charges.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. The respondent was found permitting the passengers to undertake the journey without ticket on different dates. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent never deposited the cash in time.

The petitioner has already been directed to be removed from service in 2006 against which he filed an appeal which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same he preferred. Thereafter, a reference was made before the lower court who directed the reinstatement of the respondent.