IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 51 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand & others ……Petitioner Versus Preetam Singh & another ….. Respondents Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for State/petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No.2 Hon’bel Brain Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The original respondent, to the writ petition, was a Constable working under the State of Uttarakhand. He was suspended and then a disciplinary proceeding was imitated against him. Though the original respondent did not give a reply to the chargesheet issued in the disciplinary proceeding, an enquiry was made into the charges. The Enquiry Officer fixed a date of enquiry and asked the original respondent to appear at the enquiry as was fixed. The notice, fixing the date and venue of the enquiry, was served upon the original respondent at a hospital where he was under going treatment for Gangrene. Original respondent, accordingly, requested for postponement of the enquiry. Instead of postponing the enquiry, the enquiry was held ex parte. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the original respondent was dismissed from service. The charge in the enquiry was that the original respondent was absent from parade for one day and he was found later in intoxicated condition. Original respondent approached the Tribunal against the dismissal order, as was confirmed in appeal and thereupon by the revisional authority. Tribunal found that the enquiry is vitiated as same was held without giving sufficient opportunity to the original respondent to defend the charges against him. Tribunal, accordingly, quashed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate and the revisional authority. While, however, doing so, since the interference was only on a technical ground, the Tribunal was though required to give a further opportunity to the employer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, it did not do so. That appears to be the lacuna in the order of the Tribunal. 2. The same having been brought to out notice, it is our duty to correct the said lacuna of the Tribunal. However, inasmuch as, during the pendency of the writ petition, the original respondent died leaving him surviving the substituted respondents, we cannot direct holding of a fresh enquiry against the original respondent, while on suspension, died in harness. Terminal claims of the original respondent be, accordingly, settled and paid to the person entitled to receive the same. 3. This disposes of the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.12.2010 Aswal/Prabodh