IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 304 of 2009 (S/B) Prakash Chandra Balutia ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Finance, Dehradun & another …Respondents Shri Pradeep Hariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 30th December, 2010 Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) A punishment of censure was inflicted upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said punishment, petitioner approached the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand. Before the Tribunal, no one made it clear under which law the punishment was inflicted. The Tribunal found that the principle of natural justice, however, had not been complied with. In those circumstances, Tribunal set aside the order impugned before it. Tribunal at the same time granted liberty to proceed for departmental proceeding afresh. Subsequent thereto, again a same order has been passed and thereby, the petitioner has been censured. Petitioner is, accordingly, before us. 2. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the punishment impugned in the present with petition has been inflicted after taking recourse to the provisions of Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. In terms thereof, before inflicting punishment, it is mandatory that a charge sheet be served upon the delinquent. Admittedly, no such charge sheet was issued after the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the order impugned being contrary to the law applicable to the subject, the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed to that extent. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2010 30.12.2010 ML