AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmal Yadav, J.—Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, standing counsel for State of Uttarakhand.
The only argument raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that punishment of dismissal awarded by the authorities does not commensurate with the charge leveled against the Petitioner. It is argued that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the act alleged against the Petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that two duties were assigned to Petitioner at the same time, one was of keeping a vigil on convicts and another was of having surprise inspection in the entire open jail area. The fact that two duties were assigned simultaneously to the Petitioner has not been specifically denied by the Respondents in the counter affidavit.
Keeping in view the fact that Petitioner was assigned with two duties simultaneously, he could not keep proper vigil on the convicts when Petitioner was assigned with the duty of surprise inspection in the entire open area of jail at the same time.
In these circumstances, punishment of dismissal does not appear to commensurate with alleged act of negligence and is disproportionate to the charge leveled against him. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 24.02.1987, 05.03.1987 and 15.03.1995 are set aside. In present case, the circumstances do not make out a case of major punishment, however, in case, Respondent authorities wish to consider the matter on the point of awarding one of the minor punishments, they may proceed accordingly. Respondent authorities are directed to pay salary to the Petitioner during the period he remained out of service and grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.