Uttarakhand High Court
Puran Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 January, 2026
2026:UHC:510
Judgment Reserved on: 24.12.2025
Judgment Delivered on:10.01.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO.920 OF 2009
Puran Singh Bisht ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Naveen Tewari, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT:(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:
"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18-8-09 passed by the respondent no. 3 in contravention of the Hon'ble Allahabad High court order dated 08.01.98.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to comply the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order dated 8-1-1998 passed in writ petition no.40404 of 1993.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Collection Amin at Bhanoli and pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from March 2009 onwards with 20% interest.
IV. Issue, any other order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case.
V. Award cost of the petition to the Petitioner.
VI. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2."1
2026:UHC:510
3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 31.08.1989 for a period of 30 days and thereafter he worked as Seasonal Collection Amin with some artificial breaks. A Writ Petition No.9557 of 1997 (Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) was preferred before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which was decided on 16.07.1997 and operative portion of the said order reads as under:
"In view of the un-rebutted allegations in the petition, I am of the opinion, that this petition deserves, to be allowed. Since the petitioners have been performing the same work as the regular Collection Amin and regular collection peon, I direct that they shall be given the same salaries, allowances and other benefits and other facilities as regular Collection Amins and collection peons, as the case may be, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The State Government is further directed to take a decision of the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Nainital, for creation of posts (copies of which are annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition) expeditiously, and till then the services of the petitioners shall be continued without any artificial break in service.
The petition is allowed."
4. The petitioner thereafter preferred a writ petition No.40404 of 1993 and the said writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment passed in Umrao Singh's case on 08.01.1998. In pursuance to the order passed in the above-mentioned writ petition filed by the petitioner an order dated 15.09.2008 was passed by the District Magistrate, Almora by which petitioner was provided the benefit as is available to a regular employee from the date of issuance of the order in his case by the 2 2026:UHC:510 High Court i.e. from 08.01.1998.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that when a post of regular collection Amin fell vacant on 01.08.1998 on retirement of Ramesh Lal Sah then the petitioner submitted a representation for consideration of his case for appointment as a regular collection Amin. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents for appointment as a regular collection Amin as such the petitioner filed WPSB No.233 of 2003 which was decided on 02.04.2003 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as regular collection Amin.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was, however, rejected vide order dated 02.05.2003. The petitioner had filed a contempt petition no.158 of 2003 for non-compliance of the order and in the said contempt petition a direction was issued by the Court on 28.01.2004 directing the District Magistrate to reconsider representation of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order and the District Magistrate Almora on 16.02.2004 again rejected the case of the petitioner. The contempt petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.04.2008 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, however, petitioner instead of 3 2026:UHC:510 challenging the said order in the writ petition filed a review petition in the contempt petition which was dismissed on 26.06.2008.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had filed writ petition and thereafter a contempt petition against the respondents as such the respondents felt offended and placed the petitioner under suspension and, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The said disciplinary proceedings were concluded vide order dated 18.08.2009 and an order of removal was passed. The petitioner has challenged the said order of removal dated 18.08.2009 in the writ petition.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition an order was passed on 28.06.2018 by the Court directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner filed against the impugned order dated 18.08.2009. The order passed by the Court on 28.06.2018 reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 passed by respondent No.3, before the District Magistrate, Almora which is still pending since 2009.
Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Almora is directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today.
List this matter after eight weeks."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4 2026:UHC:510 the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate, Almora on 20.08.2018 and by an amendment application the said order dated 20.08.2018 was also put to challenge by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated in law as the same are in complete violation of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 2003 which was further amended in the year 2010.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Office on concluding the said proceedings submitted an inquiry report to the disciplinary authority and recommended the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. He refers to the Charge-sheet dated 18.05.2009 issued by the Inquiry Officer which is signed by the said authority and also refers to the inquiry report dated 15.07.2009, and the operative portion of the said inquiry report reads as under:
"vr% Jh iwju flag fc"V ¼fuyfEcr½ lhtuy laxzg vehu rglhy Hkuksyh ftyk vYeksMk dks mijksä xEHkhj vkjksiksa ds iw.kZ fl) gksus ds dkj.k nh?kZ 'kkfLr;ksa ls nf.Mr djus dh laLrqfr lfgr tkpa vk[;k ewy i=koyh lfgr egksn; dh lsok esa lknj çsf"krA"
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of an inquiry officer before the 5 2026:UHC:510 delinquent officer pleads guilty or not guilty, to the charge-sheet is impermissible. Moreover, an inquiry officer is supposed to be an independent officer and as such issuance of the charge-sheet and the recommendation of punishment by the inquiry officer is bad in law and as such the entire exercise undertaken against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments passed by this Court:
1) Smt. Lalita Verma Vs. State and Another WPSB No.118 of 2008 decided on 30.06.2008.
2) Ram Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, SPA No.300 of 2015 decided on 03.07.2015.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / State submits that case of the petitioner was considered for regularization by the competent authority on 16.02.2004 and the said order was not put to challenge by the petitioner in a writ proceedings though the said liberty was granted to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Court in his contempt proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner instead of challenging the said order in a writ proceedings filed a review petition in the contempt petition which was also dismissed on 31.03.2009 and thereafter, the SPA filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
6
2026:UHC:510
14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the submissions of the petitioner with regard to the issuance of charge-sheet by the inquiry officer is concerned, the same was permissible under the departmental 2003 Rules prior to its amendment in the year 2010. The disciplinary authority has stated in the order of removal that the charge-sheet was approved by him as such there is no illegality in the issuance of the charge-sheet by the inquiry officer.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority and has only given its recommendation for imposing major penalty, however, the final decision was to be taken by the disciplinary authority which had given its cogent and independent decision holding the petitioner guilty of the serious misconduct. The copy of the inquiry report was served on the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to put forth his case. The charges leveled against the petitioner were serious in nature and out of twenty charges, sixteen charges were fully proved, three charges partially proved and one charge was not proved.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order of removal in an appeal, however, 7 2026:UHC:510 petitioner submitted his representation to the District Magistrate on various other grounds and the same was also decided by the said authority on 18.08.2009.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.02.2009, however, there is no challenge to the said suspension order. The Charge-sheet was issued on 18.05.2009 by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer while submitting its report to the disciplinary authority has recommended the punishment on the petitioner and it has been stated in clear terms that a major penalty should be imposed on the petitioner.
18. In the considered view of the Court, the inquiry officer is supposed to be an independent person and an inquiry officer can only be appointed after the charge- sheet is served upon the delinquent officer and he pleads not guilty of the charges. A Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No.118 of 2008, 'Smt. Lalita Verma Vs. State and another' on 30.06.2008 has laid down three propositions of law, namely:
"1. With reference to the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Uttaranchal Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, the suspension order must say, record and mention, that the charges against the concerned Government Servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, ordinarily major penalty would be inflicted. (refer to Para 4 of the aforesaid judgment)
2. By referring to Rule 7 of the aforesaid 2003 Rules in 8 2026:UHC:510 comparison to Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Inquiry Officer should be appointed only after the charge sheet is served upon the delinquent officer and he pleads "not guilty"
to the charges. There is no reason or occasion to appoint an Inquiry Officer before the delinquent officer pleads "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charge sheet. (refer to Para 7 of the aforesaid Judgment)
3. The charge sheet should not be signed by the Inquiry Officer. (refer to Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment)"
19. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was issued on 18.05.2009 much after the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2008. Moreover, the inquiry officer recommended for inflicting a major penalty on the petitioner and the aforesaid action of the inquiry officer is not permitted as an inquiry officer is supposed to be an independent person and is required to inquire into the allegations and to submit its report with regard to the charges being proved or not and it is for the disciplinary authority to take a final decision of imposing a penalty on a delinquent officer after providing a copy of the inquiry report and asking the officer concerned to show cause whether the said punishment should be imposed or not.
The said view of the Court is fortified by reading of Clause 8 of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 which reads as under:
"8. Submission of Inquiry Report: When the inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority along with all the records of the inquiry. The inquiry report shall contain a sufficient record of brief facts, the evidence and statement of the findings on each charge and the reasons thereof. The Inquiry Officer shall not make any recommendation about the penalty."
20. Thus, there is a specific bar in the rules 9 2026:UHC:510 wherein in clear terms the inquiry officer is precluded from making any recommendations about the penalty to be imposed on a delinquent officer. A Constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B. Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727 in paragraph no.7 has held as under:
"7. What are the duties of the enquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry, is the next question and this Court in A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India [1962 Supp (1) SCR 968, 977:
AIR 1962 SC 1130] has in terms held that the question of imposing punishment can only arise after inquiry is made and the report of the enquiry officer is received. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the inquiring authority to do so. The latter has, when so required, to appraise the evidence, to record its conclusion and if it thinks proper to suggest the appropriate punishment. But neither the conclusion on the evidence nor the punishment which the inquiring authority may regard as appropriate, is binding upon the punishing authority. In that case, the charge served upon the delinquent officer by the enquiry officer itself incorporated the proposed punishment. Hence it was also observed that in the communication addressed by the enquiry officer the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the appellant if he was found guilty of the charges, could not properly be set out. Two things, therefore, emerge from this decision, viz., that it is not the function of the enquiry officer to propose any punishment even after he records findings of guilt against the delinquent employee. Much less can the enquiry officer do so at the stage of serving the charges on the employee. Secondly, it is for the disciplinary authority to propose the punishment after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer which suggests that before the authority proposes the punishment, it must have applied its mind to the evidence and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 has held in paragraph no.14 as under:
"14. In regard to the question whether an enquiry officer 10 2026:UHC:510 can indicate the proposed punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of decisions has pointed out that it is for the punishing/disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and enquiry officer has no role in awarding punishment. It is useful to refer to the decision of this Court in A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 1130: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 968] wherein it was held: (AIR p. 1134, para 6) "6. In the communication addressed by the enquiry officer the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the appellant if he was found guilty of the charges could not properly be set out. The question of imposing punishment can only arise after enquiry is made and the report of the enquiry officer is received. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiring authority."
21. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. The impugned orders dated 18.08.2009 and 20.08.2018 are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity in service. Petitioner's status shall be restored to the position held by him as detailed in the order dated 15.09.2008, whereby the petitioner was provided the benefit as is available to a regular employee in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in his writ petition. In respect of salary and other monetary benefits, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the said monetary benefits.
22. A liberty is given to the competent authority to take a fresh decision in the matter. If the competent authority is of the view that a lesser punishment can be imposed on the petitioner than the punishment of 11 2026:UHC:510 removal then decision to the said effect would be taken by him after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner taking into account the fact that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. If the competent authority is of the view that the disciplinary proceedings are to be continued then the same shall be held strictly in accordance with the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 2003 as amended in the year 2010.
23. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
24. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt:10.01.2026 Sukhbant 12