IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 268 of 2010 (S/B) Smt. Uma Prakash …Petitioner. Versus National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J, (Oral) On 5th October, 2010, petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 6th October, 2010, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. On 6th October, 2010, the Inquiry Officer asked the petitioner to give specific answer to five questions. Petitioner gave an answer on 8th October, 2010. The Inquiry Officer thereupon made inquiry behind the back of the petitioner and submitted a Report. In the Report, he pointed out that the programme in question in respect whereof the questions were asked was overseen and approved by the petitioner. It was stated that during training, the Character of Narad did not enact the objectionable part, which he did during the actual performance. On the basis of this Inquiry Report, by the order impugned in the writ petition, services of the petitioner were terminated. While it was the specific case of the petitioner in her reply to the questions that all the IEC team members saw the play presented by the Artists in question, in course of Inquiry, some of the members stated that they did not watch the entire play. There is no finding in Inquiry 2 Report whether those members during the time they watched the programme watched the objectionable play or not. The same could only be highlighted, if the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine those members. In the circumstances, on the basis of the Inquiry thus conducted, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated. Further more, in the instant case, as would be evident from the Inquiry Report itself, the person who was appointed as Inquiry Officer was very much associated with the programme and accordingly in his Report has tried to shield him. A person of such nature cannot be appointed an Inquiry Officer. Further more, it is unheard of in disciplinary actions that the charge sheet would be issued by the Inquiry Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority did not issue the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer was appointed even before the charge sheet was issued. The Inquiry Officer did not issue the charge-sheet instead asked for answers to certain questions. The Rules governing disciplinary actions do not authorise the manner in which the same was purported to be done in the instant case. We, accordingly, interfere with the matter and set aside the order impugned in the writ petition as well as the Inquiry Report, the letter containing questions sent by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner as well as everything done on the basis thereof. It shall be open to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding, if he is so advised, but in accordance with law. It has come to our notice that the play with the title “HIV/AIDS Ki Jaankari, Nar Se Narain Tak” was performed. We direct the State Government to make an inquiry as to who approved such a title of a play for being displayed on behalf of the State and to take appropriate 3 action against such person, inasmuch as, to our mind HIV/AIDS Ki Jankari to Narain is wholly uncalled for. The writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.3.2011 Rathour