IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1072 of 2003 Bijendra Kumar Srivastava …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …..Respondents Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) The petitioner is a “Peshi Kanoongo” in the Revenue Services of the State of Uttarakhand. He is aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand (Annexure -1) whereby it has been recommended that prima facie it has been found that the petitioner is involved in tempering with the revenue records and therefore it was directed that the disciplinary enquiry be instituted against him and the consequent order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun (Annexure – 1A) by which the petitioner was transferred to Survey Naib Tehsildar Region as Survey Kanoongo. These two orders have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Vide interim order dated 18.9.2003, the operation of these two orders 9.7.2003 and 28.8.2003 was stayed. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The main grievance of the petitioner is that when he was working as a “Peshi Kanoongo” at Tapovan in district Tehri Garhwal, a complaint was made against him regarding tempering with the revenue records. The District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal directed the Assistant Record Officer to do the preliminary enquiry into the matter. In the preliminary enquiry, it was found that the case is made out against the petitioner and consequently the Chief Development Officer conducted a detail departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, the Chief Development Officer found that the charges against 2 the petitioner were not established and the matter was then subsequently referred to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal for subsequent action. All the same, on the same cause of action, the Additional Secretary, Revenue had also written vide letter dated 19.12.2002 to the District Magistrate, Dehradun to enquire into the matter and submit the report. The District Magistrate, Dehradun directed his subordinate to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the matter. In this preliminary enquiry it was found that prima facie there was a case against the petitioner and consequently the Additional Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand vide his order dated 9.7.2003 directed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he recommended to the District Magistrate, Dehradun to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and other concerned employees/officials of the department. Consequently another order dated 28.8.2003 was passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun whereby the petitioner was transferred to Survey Naib Tehsildar Region as Survey Kanoongo. It is these two orders which have been challenged in the present Writ Petition. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to letter dated 12.8.2003 (Annexure – 29 to the Writ Petition) which is an enquiry report from the Chief Development Officer to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal informing him that he has conducted the enquiry and there is nothing against the petitioner. The petitioner now contends that once the disciplinary enquiry has already been completed, there is no occasion to the District Magistrate, Dehradun to pass the order dated 28.8.2003 and therefore the order dated 28.8.2003 is illegal. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, however, contends that there were enough evidence against the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings and it is in consequence to this that the impugned orders have been passed against the petitioner. All the same, since these two orders have been stayed by this Court, the matter is stalled. 3 From the records placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Gopal Narain and the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Sri N.P. Sah, it is obvious that there are two different perceptions on this matter – (A) by the District Authorities of Dehradun and (B) by the District Authorities in Tehri Garhwal. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to direct the Secretary, Revenue, Dehradun, Government of Uttarakhand to take a final decision in the matter. In case the Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand finds on the basis of the available enquiry reports as well as the documents that they need to proceed further against the petitioner and other employees, they may do so. However, in case they feel that a departmental enquiry has already been completed against the petitioner, and nothing further needs to be done then that should be the end of the matter. In case the Authorities choose to proceed departmentally against the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible but certainly within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is given to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand. Till the Secretary, Revenue, Government of Uttarakhand reaches a decision into the matter, as directed above, the status quo as regarding posting of the petitioner as on today shall continue. The petitioner will be at liberty to produce all the records before the Secretary, Revenue including the entire documents which are available before this Court in the form of writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Since the direction of status quo, as stated above, has already been made, it is necessary that the interim orders granted by this Court dated 18.9.2003 are liable to be vacated. It is hereby vacated. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.7.2010 Avneet