IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII Rule 32(2) (b) Description of the case. Writ Petition No. 285 of 2004 (S/B) Date of decision: 20th September, 2004 For the approval of: Hon’ble Chief Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain. - Whether the order/judgment should be sent to the reporters for reporting? ( — ) - Whether the reporters be allowed to see the judgment? ( Yes ) A 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 285 (S/B) of 2004 State of Uttaranchal and other ……… Petitioners Versus Sri Gajendra Singh Bhadauria and another ………. Respondents .……... Sri K.P. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. R. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.. Coram: Hon’ble V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. Dated: September 20, 2004 P.C. 1. This writ petition is against the order dated 5th of November, 2003 passed by the Uttaranchal Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun, by which the Tribunal found some technical fault with the enquiry and, therefore, set aside the same and the consequent punishment order. While parting with the matter, the Tribunal observed as under: “Taking into consideration the discussion mentioned above, we are of the view that this petition deserved to be allowed. Hence, impugned order Annexure-1 passed by the then S.P. Pauri dated 10th of July, 2000 is hereby set aside and the petitioner shall be re-instead in service and shall be paid the entire arrears of salary after deducting the amount if any paid to him. However, it is open for the appointing authority to initiate fresh enquiry against the petitioner on the charges levelled against him and may pass any appropriate order in the light of the observation made earlier.” 2. All this was done on account of the unauthorized absence on the part of the respondent no.1 on two occasions. That was viewed rather seriously in the enquiry. As has already been stated, the enquiry has been found to be incorrect on the technical grounds and there has also been mention about the punishment being disproportionate. As per the observations in paragraph 11, the State Government has already proceeded to hold fresh enquiry. In awarded one censure entry and his unauthorized absence was treated to be leave without pay and he would not be paid salary for the period. In this 2 view, we will not exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution now to reopen the issue regarding enquiry as also with regard to the fairness of the quantum of punishment awarded. 3. In view if the subsequent developments asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent, we should not like to use our discretion in favour of the State. 4. The Petition is dismissed accordingly. (Irshad Hussain, J.) (V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.) 20.09.2004 20.09.2004 A