Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 290 (UTT)

Anand Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-25

K.M.JOSEPH, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this court earlier by way of filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 238 of 2017. Therein the petitioner called in question his suspension. The judgment was rendered in the same on 19.7.2017. The substance of the petitioner’s complaint was that he was not being supplied with several documents. This Court took note of the stand of the respondents that documents have been supplied and in any way documents will be supplied. We also directed on that basis, the petitioner will give a reply to the charge-sheet, which had already been issued in this case on 16.8.2016. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present writ petition on 20.9.2017. The reliefs sought in this writ petition is a challenge to the charge-sheet itself. The ground taken for challenging the charge-sheet is that the charge-sheet was not issued by the Disciplinary Authority; it was prepared by the Inquiry Officer and subsequently issued by the Disciplinary Authority. It is noteworthy that in this case, in fact, the original Inquiry Officer had been changed and subsequently there were two other Inquiry Officers who were appointed. It is while this writ petition was pending that the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 103 of 2018. Therein the reliefs sought, two in number, are as follows: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) as well as the letter dated 8.3.2018 passed/issued by the respondent authorities. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to supply the certified copy of the documents and further conclude the inquiry within a time period as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Therefore, the complaint in the said writ petition was that the petitioner was not being supplied with certified copies of the documents and the documents which were supplied were also not genuine. It was further contended that all the documents which were required to be given to him under judgment dated 19.7.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 238 of 2017 were not supplied. 3. This court repelled the contention that the petitioner is entitled to be supplied with certified copies. It was further contended that all the documents which were required to be given to him under judgment dated 19.7.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 238 of 2017 were not supplied. 3. This court repelled the contention that the petitioner is entitled to be supplied with certified copies. As regards the contention that the petitioner was not supplied with documents, which were genuine, and that all the documents were not supplied to him, this court left it free for the petitioner to raise the same before the Inquiry Officer. Keeping in mind the relief sought by the petitioner that the inquiry be concluded within a time, this court also directed that the inquiry be concluded within a period of ten weeks. This judgment was pronounced on 20.3.2018. 4. It is thereafter that this writ petition is being taken up for hearing. 5. We heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 6. The contention, as we have noted in this case, is that the charge-sheet is vitiated for the reason that, as per the rules, as amended, the charge-sheet has to be issued by the Disciplinary Authority and, in this case, the charge-sheet was prepared by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel would contend that this goes to the root of the matter. Even if the inquiry is conducted and concluded, this vice will continue to afflict the proceedings. He would submit that the petitioner is being harassed. There is no bona fide to the charge-sheet and if a fresh charge-sheet is issued and if the Disciplinary Authority apply its mind to it as to whether an inquiry is really necessary, he would come to the conclusion that it is really not needed. 7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would refer to the earlier cases and submit that it is for the first time that this contention is taken regarding the charge-sheet for the first time in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. 8. We have noticed the judgments pronounced in the cases filed by the petitioner and the dates have also been noted. 8. We have noticed the judgments pronounced in the cases filed by the petitioner and the dates have also been noted. Though the charge-sheet was issued on 16.8.2016 and two writ petitions were disposed of earlier, this complaint as such did not engage the attention of the Court, for the reason that this contention was never projected before this Court. It is in a writ petition, which was filed on 20.9.2017, that this question is now being raised and pressed before us. On the one hand, we are confronted with the direction issued by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 103 of 2018 by which we had, accepting the prayer of the petitioner himself, directed the inquiry to be concluded. No doubt, the petitioner would submit that this may not stand in the way of the matter, going to the root, being raised. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the writ petition is to be disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to raise this contention and also making it clear that it will be open to the Disciplinary Authority to go in for a fresh charge-sheet taking note of the alleged illegality, which is pointed out by the petitioner. We do so and the writ petition is disposed of on the said lines.