Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 517 (UTT)

Aradhana Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-10-30

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder present for the State. 3. The petitioner is an Excise Inspector in State Government Services. She was appointed on 24.12.2013 as an Excise Inspector. Her appointment was initially on probation for a period of two years. Initially, her first posting as an Excise Inspector was at Kirtinagar Distict Tehri Garhwal. Later on 30.05.2014 she was posted at joined her duties at “Badkot” region in District Uttarkashi. 4. On 05.08.2014, in a departmental meeting conducted by the Commissioner, Excise, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, the petitioner asked some questions from the Commissioner Excise, Uttarakhand regarding her transfer from Kritinagar District Tehri Garhwal to Badkot District Uttarkashi. Thereafter, it is alleged that petitioner used some un-parliamentary language against her superior officer. She was then asked to leave the meeting room and an oral suspension order was also passed. Formally, a written suspension order was given to her on the next day i.e. 06.08.2014 which was challenged before this Court being WPSS No. 1985 of 2014. During the pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2014. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the State and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the dismissal order, if she so desires. 5. Petitioner has now challenged her dismissal order dated 02.12.2014 before this Court by means of the present writ petition in which counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit including supplementary affidavits have also been filed in the matter. The matter is being heard finally. 6. Suspension order does not reflect whether the suspension was in contemplation of enquiry or it is during the process of departmental proceedings. 7. Be that as it may on 29.08.2014, the charge sheet was served on the petitioner. There are in total five charges. The first four charges relate to the conduct of the petitioner as well as the efficiency or rather her non-efficiency as an Excise Inspector. 7. Be that as it may on 29.08.2014, the charge sheet was served on the petitioner. There are in total five charges. The first four charges relate to the conduct of the petitioner as well as the efficiency or rather her non-efficiency as an Excise Inspector. The 5th charge relates to the meeting which was held on 05.08.2014 in the office of Commissioner Excise, Uttarakhand wherein petitioner had used un-parliamentary and indecent language against the Commissioner, Excise, Uttarakhand which is a violation of Rules 3(1)(2) of Uttaranchal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 2002. She has given reply against the charge sheet on 26.09.2014, explaining that she has inspected check-posts and she has caught certain accused committing crime under the U.P. Excise Act. She has also given details of raids which was conducted by her in order to disprove the charges against her but regarding 5th charge, she has replied that there was a meeting on 05.08.2014 at Commissioner Excise Head Quarter, Dehradun where she was the lone lady Excise Inspector. While perusing her diary, the Commissioner Excise, Uttarakhand started shouting at her and later he asked her to leave the meeting room. She felt insulted and humiliated by the conduct of the Commissioner Excise, she alleges. Consequent to the reply filed by the petitioner, a decision was taken by which it appears that she is making an allegation against the Commissioner Excise that he is conspiring against her and in the end of her reply, she has also made a tongue and cheek comment against the Commissioner Excise, Uttarakhand saying that may God give him wisdom not to do such things against an officer in future. 8. The Inquiry Officer, after perusal of the reply found that the language in which petitioner has replied to the charges itself reflects that on 05th August, 2014 she has used un-parliamentary and indecent language against superior officer, therefore, he has confirmed all the charges against the petitioner giving his finding that all the charges are proved against the petitioner. 9. It is not disputed that the copy of the Enquiry report was given to the petitioner and petitioner has given explanation to the Inquiry Officer rebutting the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, an order was passed on 02.12.2014 after departmental proceedings against the petitioner by which the charges against the petitioner were proved and the petitioner has been dismissed from her service. Ultimately, an order was passed on 02.12.2014 after departmental proceedings against the petitioner by which the charges against the petitioner were proved and the petitioner has been dismissed from her service. This order is presently under challenge before this Court. 10. What is most surprising is that neither Inquiry Officer nor the appointing authority in the dismissal order has shown as to what un-parliamentary or indecent language was actually used by the petitioner against her superior officer i.e. the Commissioner Excise, Uttarakhand. Vague allegations have been made regarding the un-parliamentary and indecent language which is being used by the petitioner. This is not condone the behaviour of the petitioner in the meeting which was held on 05th August, 2014 which is liable to be condoned, since an extreme punishment has now been imposed against the petitioner which is dismissal from the service which entails that she is not eligible for future employment in government service, a little more care was required by both the Inquiry Officer as well as appointing authority in this matter. 11. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has rebutted all the allegations of the petitioner in his counter affidavit and has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein certain letters of the petitioner have been annexed. Admittedly, these letters were sent to the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister of the State by the petitioner. These letters to Chief Secretary and Chief Minister was sent by the petitioner when she was facing the departmental enquiry regarding the charges already mentioned above. The letters, inter-alia, state that Commissioner Excise is not fit for this job and he should be removed from his service. Undoubtedly, the overall conduct of the petitioner is not at all inspiring. The picture she has presented before this Court is of cantankerous officer who does not abided by the instructions of her superior officer and her conduct also reflects that she is not willing to subordinate. 12. Learned Chief Standing Counsel also states that such officer as the petitioner is not fit to be kept in a Government service. Moreover, she is already on probation period, therefore, she was already on trial and her conduct has to be examined and in case department comes to the conclusion that she is not fit for this service, therefore, her termination from her service is a just order. 13. Moreover, she is already on probation period, therefore, she was already on trial and her conduct has to be examined and in case department comes to the conclusion that she is not fit for this service, therefore, her termination from her service is a just order. 13. The work of the petitioner is only being seen from 24.12.2013 till 06.08.2014 which is for a period of about eight months or less. This work has to be seen on a perusal of her diary and the number of arrest that she has made, the number of raids she has made may not be satisfactory, as this is the conclusion of the authority, therefore, this Court will not question on this aspect. What has to be seen also is that the total period of probation was of two years and as far as the work of the petitioner has been examined, it is only for eight months which is too short a period where a conclusion can be drawn that the petitioner is not fit to be an Excise Inspector. 14. As regarding the 5th charge i.e. un-parliamentary and indecent language used by the petitioner and her behaviour towards the superior officer is concerned though there are documents and even the reply of the petitioner reflects that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to an insubordination, yet dismissal of her service on this ground, at this juncture of her career is too harsh a punishment. Penologically speaking the punishment imposed against the petitioner is not proportionate to the charges leveled against her, even assuming they are found to be true. 15. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has also qualified prelims of the State Provincial Civil Service exam but this would all be in vain since she has been dismissed from government service. She would in any case now be ineligible for employment in government service in future. 16. Indeed the petitioner is still on probation. Her performance was always under evaluation. She was on trial. If at the end of her period of probation, the appointing authority would have come to the conclusion that her performance is not up to the mark then would have been the end of the matter. Normally in such cases no interference can be done. But here it is different. Her performance was always under evaluation. She was on trial. If at the end of her period of probation, the appointing authority would have come to the conclusion that her performance is not up to the mark then would have been the end of the matter. Normally in such cases no interference can be done. But here it is different. The very manner of her termination of service when she stands dismissed, is stigmatic. Consequently, a due process of a departmental enquiry etc. was required. The same has been done. The challenge, however, is not on a procedural fault but on the punishment order itself. Did the conduct of the petitioner warrant such an extreme penalty? 17. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that penologically speaking the punishment is quite harsh under the circumstances. Although the conduct of the petitioner leaves much to be desired yet considering the fact that she is just starting her career and the extreme penalty of dismissal disentitles her from future government service, an interference is being made here. 18. Impugned order 02.12.2014 is hereby quashed with the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall be taken back in service and she will be given her joining with immediate effect but she would not be entitled for her arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits, save the continuity of service which shall be given to the petitioner which will be counted in all other service matters including her post retrial benefits. (2) Another condition is that from the date of joining, petitioner shall be on trial again for a period of two years which would mean that she would be on a further probation for a period of two years from that date and her work and conduct shall be closely scrutinized by the authority concerned and thereafter, the confirmation will depend upon her conduct and work during these years. 19. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed and stands disposed accordingly.