IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2005 (SS) Dinesh Kumar Saini ……..Petitioner. Versus Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal Shashan, District Dehradun and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 22nd October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was an Ahalmad/ Clerk in Revenue Services. At the relevant time, he was posted as Ahalmad in the Court of Additional Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year, 2001, in which the charge against the petitioner was that while he was serving as Ahalmad in the Court of Additional Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, one file relating to Case No. 4/1994 State Vs. Ramdass pertaining to Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was lost by him and was not deposited in the record room. In his reply, the petitioner has stated that the file was lost not due to his negligence or any act or omission, but because of the Peshkar of the Office i.e. Ram Pal Singh Pundir. The petitioner also states that the main responsibility of keeping the record is on the Peshkar and not on the petitioner, who is merely an Ahalmad. 2 These facts were examined by the District Magistrate, Haridwar and vide order dated 15.3.2001, he came to the conclusion that the responsibility was of the petitioner and found the petitioner guilty of the charges and consequently, awarded the following two punishments A) an adverse entry to be recorded in service of the petitioner and B) a permanent stoppage of one annual increment. The petitioner appealed against this order to the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner after discussing the entire matter, upheld the guilt of the petitioner vide his order dated 30th August, 2003. However, the Divisional Commissioner also held that the punishment under the circumstances is rather severe on the petitioner and therefore punishment of stoppage of one annual increment was removed and the punishment of adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner was retained. Against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner further went before the Chief Revenue Commissioner, who in turn upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 4.6.2005. It is also relevant to mention here that along with the petitioner the concerned Peshkar of the office Mr. Ram Pal Singh Pundir against whom the petitioner has also made allegation was also charge-sheeted and since he was reaching the age of superannuation, the punishment of adverse entry in his service book was retained. Now since the punishment of the petitioner and the concerned Peshkar are the same, on the ground of parity the petitioner has no case. The orders of the Divisional Commissioner dated 30th August, 2003 and the Chief Revenue Commissioner dated 4.6.2005 appear to be perfectly in order. The charges have been 3 established against the petitioner and penalogically also the punishment, which has been awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be severe. There is no ground for interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.10.2009 Rathour