IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.201 of 2010 (S/B) Matloob Hussain ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Dated: 8th September, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition challenges the decision rendered by the Tribunal on a claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking interference with a punishment order whereby the petitioner was censured in his service-book for the year 2001. The contention of the petitioner is that, while considering his reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically and failed to take note of the fact that the matter alleged was inefficiency only or error in judgment but not of an act, which can be construed as misconduct, inasmuch as, the facts complained of do not suggest any malicious conduct on the part of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the State has taken us through the show cause, the reply thereto as well as the order of Disciplinary Authority passed after 2 considering such reply. The learned counsel submitted that the show cause makes it clear that the acts complained of did not indicate inefficiency/lack of judgment alone, but such act or conduct on the part of the petitioner, which constitute misconduct. He submitted that in any event, the acts complained of were of such nature, which though may be treated as negligence, but which may result in a catastrophe. The learned counsel submitted that there was appropriate application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority and he dealt with each of the aspects highlighted in the reply to the show cause, while dealing with the matter. 3. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, the Fire Station Second Officer. The Fire Station Officer having obtained casual leave, the petitioner became the In- Charge Fire Station Officer from 16th December, 1999 to 18th December, 1999. On 18th December, 1999 the Superintendent of Police made a surprise visit to the Fire Station, when the petitioner was not found present. In addition to that 15 out of 24 Firemen were not found on duty. It transpired that duty chart though has been prepared, but it had not been indicated therein, who should perform duty during which period. It transpired that the pump is not in proper condition. It also transpired that the Station has not been properly cleaned and, accordingly, it is full of filth. The Superintendent of Police reported that the appropriate telephone numbers as well as appropriate Notifications have not been displayed. 4. This inspection resulted in issuance of the charge sheet, where it was indicated that it is proposed to award a minor punishment of censure to the petitioner. Petitioner gave a reply thereto, in that he justified his absence as well as absence of others by stating that the inspection took place at 9.00 a.m. and immediately prior thereto, after completion of the early morning physical training, the petitioner and others had gone to change their uniforms. It was stated that he had also instructed a few of the Firemen to clean up the Fire Station and if the Superintendent of Police had come for inspection a few minutes later, the Station would have had been cleaned by that time. It was also stated that those 15 absentee Firemen were punished for being absent but, at the same time, it was also stated that they too had gone for changing their uniform. It was stated that all important telephone numbers and other notices were appropriately tabulated and hung up, but for some reason or the other the same was not there where the same was hung up at the time of inspection. All these contentions were considered, while the order of punishment was passed. 5. It appears to us, that the allegations were basically of negligence on the part of the petitioner. We accept that mere negligence cannot be treated as misconduct. However, such negligence, which may result in a catastrophe would came within the meaning of misconduct. In the instant case, the petitioner, the then In-Charge of the Fire Station, left the Fire Station for the purpose of changing his clothes and for the 4 purpose of having a cup of tea, without admittedly making any arrangement as to what would happen, if an emergency comes during his absence. The said negligence on the part of the petitioner, exposed the station to a catastrophe. The same cannot be contended to be a mere negligence. At the same time, the petitioner, although prepared duty chart but, did not indicate who shall perform duty when. The fact remains, at the time of inspection, there were only 9 Firemen present as against 24. The pump of the Fire Station was not properly maintained. The series of negligence highlighted, made it explicit that by reason of such negligent action, the purpose for which the Fire Station was established may not fulfill, resulting in a catastrophe. 6. We, accordingly, do not feel that no case of misconduct had been made out, which could be dealt with in a disciplinary proceeding. We are also of the view that each of the contentions raised in the reply to the charge sheet, was considered before the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. We, accordingly, feel that, in the circumstances, the Tribunal had no scope of interference with the order. We, as such, close the matter and dismiss the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 08.09.2010 08.09.2010 Arpan