IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 16 of 2011 (S/B) Jagdish Prasad Kukreti …………. Petitioner Versus .…...……. Respondent State of Uttarakhand and others Present: Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 28.02. 2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) A proposal was mooted by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Garhwal), Uttarakhand to attach the petitioner, who was Ranger, Mussoorie Forest Division, Mussoorie to the Office of Divisional Forest Officer, Hardwar and thereupon to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. This proposal was mooted to the Principal Conservator of Forest, Dehradun. Principal Conservator of Forest, Dehradun on 3rd January, 2011 agreed to the said proposal. Consequentially, by an order dated 5th January, 2011, petitioner has been attached as was proposed. As far back as on 28th June, 2007, the Chief Secretary informed all concerned that attachment of an employee causes disturbance in work at the place where the employee is posted and, accordingly, under all circumstances, attachment should be avoided. That direction of the Chief Secretary pertains to ordinary attachment of employees. The same does not deal with attachment of an employee against whom a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated. However, the disciplinary rules do not authorize attachment of an employee in contemplation or in course of disciplinary action. 2 2. That being the situation, the proposal to attach and acceptance thereof, as above, was without application of mind and without ascertainment of power to do so. Such power being absent and the Chief Secretary having clarified that attachment order should not be passed, we have no other option but to cancel the attachment order in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The writ petition is allowed to that extent. This order, however, shall not prevent the State to take such steps as it may be entitled to in accordance with the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings, if the State is of the view that it must proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.02.2011 P. Singh 3