1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 440 of 2006(S/S) Mahendra Dutt Sharma ………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M. S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State. At the relevant moment of time, the petitioner was working as a Naib Tahsildar and was suspended on certain charges. A domestic enquiry was initiated pursuant to which an enquiry report was submitted, in which it was held that the petitioner had issued a wrong caste certificate to a person. The Enquiry Officer however, opined that a benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the question of imposition of penalty. The petitioner submitted a reply and, the Competent Authority, after considering the matter, passed the impugned order dated 13.2.2006. The Disciplinary Authority found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved but considering the matter in the entire perspective held that the petitioner would not get the remaining salary during the suspension period other than the substantiate allowance which the petitioner had received. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition. The only ground urged before this court is that the denial of salary to the petitioner was wholly arbitrary and excessive, which has 2 affected the payment of pension since the petitioner retired on 31st July,2006. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was not in consonance with the Rule 9(4) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Disciplinary & Appeals) Rules 2003. For facility, the said provision is quoted hereunder. 9(4) “If the disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of charges, is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule-3 should be imposed on the charged Government Servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government Servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary Authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government Servant, if any, and subject the provisions of Rule-16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule-3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government Servant. “ The learned counsel submitted that reasons have not been provided by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order. Consequently, the order is liable to be quashed for violation of the provision of Rule 9 (4) of the Rules. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the authority had considered the matter and the reply given by the applicant and, after applying its mind, had passed the order of penalty. The 3 Disciplinary Authority considered the overall situation and passed the order withholding the payment of the balance salary of the petitioner during the suspension period. In my opinion, the order of penalty does not suffer from any error of law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 28.4.2010 Nishant