Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 571 (UTT)

Chandra Singh Gwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-12-11

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the charge-sheet dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure no.3 to the petition). 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, while taking us to the Uttarakhand State Educational (Administrative Cadre) Service Rules, 2013, has vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, by way of promotion, on the post of Director, Secondary Education on 11.01.2014 as per Rule 5 of the Rules; Appointing Authority for the post of Director, Secondary Education, is His Excellency the Governor of the State; according to Mr. Sharma, since the charge-sheet was issued under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary, that too without concurrence of His Excellency the Governor of the State, who is the appointing authority/ disciplinary authority, therefore, the charge-sheet is without jurisdiction. 3. The next argument of Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that few charges are of the period starting from 2004 till 2009, which are prior to the appointment of petitioner on the post of Director, Secondary Education, made by way of promotion. Therefore, it should be presumed that when the petitioner was being considered for promotion by the Selection Committee, there was nothing against the petitioner and at the fag end of his career, all the charges were dug out with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, would further argue that for the charges or the incidents which allegedly happened 6-7 years ago, enquiry should not be permitted. 5. The Uttarakhand State Educational (Administrative Cadre) Service Rules, 2013 are silent about the procedure of the disciplinary action, therefore, the field can be said to be covered by the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003. Rule 7 of the said Rules provides procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 7(ii) and its proviso read as under:- “(ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge sheet. The charge sheet shall be approved by the Disciplinary Authority: - Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department.” 6. The charge sheet shall be approved by the Disciplinary Authority: - Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department.” 6. A bare perusal of Proviso to Rule 7(ii), quoted above, would demonstrate that where the appointing authority is the Governor, charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner was posted as Director, Secondary Education on the date of issuance of charge-sheet. Perusal of the charge-sheet would further reveal that it has been issued under the signature of Mr. S. Raju, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Vidhyalayi Shiksha. As observed hereinbefore, as per the Proviso to Rule 7(ii), if appointing authority is the Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary of the Department. Thus, we do not find any fault with the charge-sheet in question. 8. Perusal of the charge-sheet would also reveal that Institute of Public Auditors of India reported certain financial irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. Charge-sheet further reveals that the Director General of the Secondary Education has also pointed out certain financial irregularities, allegedly done by the petitioner, vide his report dated 30.3.2013. It is well settled that the financial irregularities cannot be said to be minor or formal irregularities warranting minor punishment. 9. We are conscious of the fact that if charge-sheet contains minor charges of irregularity, that too after inordinate delay, those charges, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, may not justify the disciplinary enquiry or any major punishment. However, if the charges are grave in nature, that too of financial irregularities/embezzlements, delay should not come in way of disciplinary enquiry. 10. In view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, we clarify that none of the observations made by us in the body of judgment should prejudice the mind of the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. We expect and hope that no inordinate delay shall be caused in disciplinary enquiry and it shall be taken to its logical end at the earliest.