IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 129 OF 2011 (S/S) Sudhir Kaushik ….…….Petitioner. Versus The District Judge, Dehradun and others. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by a Session Clerk in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge / 4th F.T.C., Dehradun. The petitioner was a Clerk having in his possession records of certain cases. Since record relating to Suit No. 10 of 1983 was missing from the Registry of the District Court, Dehradun, an enquiry was constituted in the matter. The preliminary enquiry found the petitioner and another clerk (who was the predecessor in charge of the petitioner), responsible for the loss of the record. The final enquiry was conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who fixed the responsibility for the missing of the said record on the petitioner as well as on another clerk, namely, Rakesh Nigam. Thereafter, the District Judge, Dehradun vide a reasoned order dated 18.11.2008 came to the conclusion that the petitioner as well as his predecessor, namely, Rakesh Nigam have failed to show that they actually prepared the list of the document / files while handing over the charge to their successors. This lapse has been found both in the case of Rakesh Nigam i.e. the predecessor as well as of the petitioner and hence they were reverted to lower grade from ` 4000- 6000 to the pay scale of ` 3050-4590. Since the statutory 2 appeal is provided under U.P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976, the matter was dealt with by the High Court in its administrative capacity in the appeal and it was found that there has been a non-compliance of circulars, namely, Circular No. 3 / 39 C dated 15.1.1970. In the light of the categorical finding that records were lost during the period when they (petitioner as well as Rakesh Nigam) were in charge, no interference was called for by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no.4. Missing of court records is a serious matter. After a duly constituted inquiry, it has been found that the petitioner as well as another clerk Rakesh Nigam was responsible for the record being missing (the other employee did not prefer an appeal). Moreover, the petitioner has not acted in accordance with the standing instructions of Circular No. 3/39 C dated 15.1.1970. No interference can also be called for on the proportionality of the punishment as well, inasmuch as, in view of the serious charge, which was levelled against the petitioner, his reversion to a lower grade seems to be a just punishment. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.3.2011 Rathour