IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 388 of 2006 Veer Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State Public Service Tribunal and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J., (Oral) The writ petition has been filed proceeding on the basis that a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated for the purpose of awarding major punishment and, accordingly, it was alleged in the petition that the basic necessary steps that are required to be taken in terms of the Rules were not taken while concluding the disciplinary proceeding and, accordingly, disciplinary proceeding is vitiated. This mistake was committed by not considering the charge-sheet, by which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated as well as the reply given thereto. On the last occasion when this matter was considered by us, we directed production of the charge- sheet as well as the reply thereto. In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that a few motorists represented to a few people including the Officer In-charge of the Police Station concerned that some person wearing police uniform stopped vehicles on the road, named in the charge-sheet, and collected illegal toll. It was also alleged that the petitioner was assigned duty at a particular Bank on that day but he was found in the vicinity of the 2 said road. It was indicated in the charge-sheet that the same is being issued under the Rule which deals with initiation and disposal of disciplinary proceedings for awarding minor punishment. In the charge-sheet, it was indicated that in the event no reply to the charge-sheet is given, the petitioner may be awarded a punishment of censure, which will be entered in his ACR. Petitioner gave a reply to the charge-sheet and there he denied having collected any illegal toll. He also denied being irresponsible in discharge of Bank duty. He did not deny that he was found on the date mentioned in the charge- sheet in the vicinity of the subject road at the time, as was mentioned in the charge-sheet. He did not deny that he left the Bank premises for the purpose of going to the vicinity of the said road. In the circumstances, the allegation contained in the charge-sheet and the manner the same was dealt with in the reply demonstrated that the petitioner accepted that he left the Bank in course of duty at the Bank for the purpose of going to the vicinity of the said road. The Rule under which the said disciplinary proceeding was initiated authorised the Disciplinary Authority to award minor punishment, which includes censure, upon making the petitioner know the charge against him, giving an opportunity to make a representation against that and thereupon to consider such representation before passing order. In the instant case, in the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, the Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with the power granted to him by the Rule in question, was competent to pass the order as was passed i.e. censure to be recorded in his ACR which warning had already been given in the charge-sheet while levelling the charges against the petitioner, which as aforesaid was accepted to the extent 3 that the petitioner left his duty at the Bank and went to the vicinity of the road in question. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.4.2011 Rathour