IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 123 of 2008 Union of India. .……… Appellant Versus Dinesh Singh. .………. Respondent. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) By the charge-sheet dated 14th March, 2002, the respondent was asked to give his reply within 24 hours. The incidents, being the subject matter of the charge-sheet, took place on 21st August, 2001 and 9th March, 2002. Only on the ground that the time given to give reply was inhumanly short, the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, the present Appeal. 2. It has been contended that Rules 17 & 18 noted by the learned Judge are not applicable. Instead, Rule 20 is applicable. Be that as it may, the requirement of Article 311, which applies, is a reasonable opportunity to defend. Can it be said that 24 hours’ time to reply can be said to be grant of a reasonable opportunity to defend the charges, and in particular, when the charge was leaving duty on 21st August, 2001 and on 9th March, 2002 and getting intoxicated? We feel that the same was not a reasonable opportunity given to defend the said charges. That being the situation, we have no other option but to hold in the same way the learned Judge has held. 3. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 25.10.2010 25.10.2010 G