IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3537 of 2001 Kishori Lal …….Petitioner. Versus Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue Anubhag – 12, U.P. Lucknow & others …..Respondents Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) The petitioner was a Senior Assistant in the office of Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal i.e. respondent no. 2. While the petitioner was working as such a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him primarily on the charges that he had instigated certain employees of his office and the office of District Magistrate and the Treasury, for applying for a loan for the purposes of “repair of house”, and consequently such employees had made formal requisition for advancement of such loan which they were given. The charge against the petitioner is that it was the petitioner who had impressed upon the employees that he is the person who deals with the distribution of such a loan and that he will do the needful for the employees. Although there are five charges against the petitioner, yet all relate to the basic charge as narrated above. Consequent to these charges, the petitioner was suspended from service and the enquiry officer gave a finding against the petitioner and consequently the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, on the basis of the said finding terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 23.5.1991. The petitioner, inter alia, contends that on the same set of charges criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and although the chargesheet was filed in the criminal case where he was acquitted in the trial. After the acquittal in criminal case the petitioner prayed the respondents for dropping the departmental proceedings against him which was rejected vide order dated 2 7.12.1998 on the ground that these two proceedings are entirely different and the departmental proceedings will not be dropped against him. The petitioner challenged both the orders dated 4.8.1999 and 7.12.1998 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Writ Petition No. 30823 of 2000 which was subsequently transferred to this High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act and was renumbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3537 of 2001. The pleadings in this case have been exchanged. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not very clear. It is not clear as to what exactly is the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, as in the opinion of this Court merely asking employees to make requisition for a loan may by itself not constitute an offence. Be that as it may, the departmental proceedings went against the petitioner in a slipshod manner and it appears that the entire evidence were also not appreciated and the maximum punishment was imposed on the petitioner dismissing him from the service. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that the loan which was distributed to the employees, on the alleged “efforts” of the petitioner has also been returned and it is not the case of the respondents that the department or the Government has incurred any monetary loss. It has also been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner died on 29.4.2009 and the legal heirs of the petitioner i.e. his widow and two sons and two daughters have been substituted by order of this Court. It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the petitioner continued in service he would have reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2010. The very charge or the charges on which the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner are flawed inasmuch as it is not clear from the charge as to what offence the petitioner has committed. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that a departmental proceeding was liable to proceed on the set of charges 3 framed against the petitioner, yet the maximum punishment of dismissal from service on the aforesaid set of charges seems to be grossly inappropriate and penologically speaking, it is against the settled principle of “proportionality” in punishment. Therefore, order dated 23.5.1991 is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service throughout till he passed away on 24.4.2009. Although no salary will be given to the petitioner for this period between 1991 to 2009, yet this period shall be deemed to be the continuous period of service of the deceased and it shall be calculated for the purposes of fixation of pension and other post retirement dues to the widow and the legal heirs of the deceased. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.7.2010 Avneet