IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 49 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Department and others …Petitioners. Versus Govind Ram and another …Respondents. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Through the instant Writ Petition, the State Government has assailed the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand dated 29.11.2006 whereby the enquiry proceedings initiated against respondent no. 1 were found to be unsustainable in law, and as such, the consequential punishment order was also set aside. The foundational basis of the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are recorded in paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 29.11.2006. Paragraph 11 is being extracted hereunder :- “11. In the present case under our consideration, it is apparent that petitioner was not issued any show cause notice before dismissing him from service. A perusal of the punishment order also shows that apart from the charges levelled, the past record of the petitioner has also been considered for which he has already been punished. Thus, the punishment order is in contravention of principle of natural justice and the rulings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above are applicable to the petitioner’s case. No reason has been shown by disciplinary authority to act on its own without considering the fact that result of final enquiry has not been received by him. The order of punishment dated 11/19.11.1997 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. The claim petition is allowed. We would clarify that this decision may not preclude the disciplinary authority 2 from revising the proceedings and continuing it in accordance with law from the stage of charges.” 2. During the course of hearing, we invited the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the factual position depicted in paragraph 11. Having read each single sentence thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledges that the same are factually correct. On account of the accepted factual position depicted in paragraph 11, we have no doubt whatsoever, that the Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the enquiry proceedings, as also, quashing the consequential punishment order. 3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 1.4.2010 Avneet