IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 505 of 2008 (S/S) WITH Stay Application No. 3956 of 2008 Kewalanand Pathak S/o Late Heeraballabh Pathak R/o Pathak Bhawan, Bari Bagecha District Almora. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Finance) Anubhag 6, Civil Secretariat Dehradun. 2. Directorate of Treasury & Finance Services Uttarakhand 23 Lakshmi Dalanwala District Dehradun. 3. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal District Nainital. .……….Respondents Shri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 09.02.2007, passed by respondent No. 1 (copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition) to the extent it relates to imposing punishment on the petitioner for recording adverse entry in the service records. Further mandamus has also been sought to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion without being influenced by the adverse entry. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Group ‘C’ employee in the treasury office, District Almora. His services are governed under Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. It appears that relating to an incident of 1994, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was challenged before Allahabad High Court by filing writ petition No. 42310 of 1999, which was decided on 01.10.1999, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within a period of three months. It appears that thereafter charge sheet was given to the petitioner and departmental enquiry proceeded with. Vide order dated 24.03.2000, the enquiry was terminated, holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments. In addition to this salary other than subsistence allowance was withheld. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the departmental appeal, which remained pending and petitioner then filed writ petition No. 531 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2004, by this Court, directing the expeditious disposal of the appeal. By the impugned order dated 09.02.2007, departmental appeal stands decided, setting aside the awarded punishment to him vide order dated 24.03.2000, and in its place adverse entry was directed to be made in his service record. Challenging said order dated 09.02.2007, passed by Government, this writ petition has been filed. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the departmental appeal was decided, the petitioner has made a representation dated 05.03.2007, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is not being considered for promotion and the adverse entry is likely to prejudice his career. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that as far as the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 09.02.2007, and the department appeal is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in the writ jurisdiction. Since the punishment awarded is adverse entry against which the petitioner has a right to make a representation and has made representation, the authority concerned is bound to decide the same within a reasonable period. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is summarily disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation dated 05.03.2007 (copy annexure-6 to the writ petition) within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before said authority. (Stay application No. 3956 of 2008, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 01.07.2008 Sweta 4