IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 412 of 2011 (S/S) Mumtaz Ahmed ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. B. D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 7. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 7. The petitioner has challenged the Show Cause Notice as well as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Employer i.e. Uttarakhand Power Corporation. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was earlier charged in a criminal case and was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under Section 304 IPC by which 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment was awarded to the petitioner. At the same time, the case of the petitioner is that he has filed a Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Tribunal, which is pending before this Court and the sentence has been suspended. Apart from this, in the disciplinary proceeding, his services were terminated. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand. The Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand allowed the Claim Petition of the petitioner 2 on the ground that the order impugned before the Tribunal was violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. Though the order impugned was set aside, liberty was given to the Employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequent to this order, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, which is presently being challenged by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been reinstated in the service consequent to the order of the Tribunal. Admittedly the petitioner was reinstated and the Employer was given liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same has been done. This Court finds no anomaly in either the disciplinary proceedings or the show cause notice given to the petitioner. The petition being totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. There is also no scope for interference of this Court at this stage as the matter is wholly premature. The petitioner must cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.5.2011 Kuldeep