Sudhir Kaushik vs The District Judge and Others

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2011, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 129 of 2011 (S/S), whereby said Court has dismissed the writ petition.

Brief facts, of the case, are that writ Petitioner Sudhir Kaushik is an employee of Civil Court, Dehradun. After record of Suit No. 10 of 1983, Jogendra Singh v. Union of India, was lost, a preliminary inquiry was got conducted by the District Judge, whereafter final inquiry was initiated against the present Appellant Sudhir Kaushik, and one Rakesh Nigam who were found to be responsible for loss of record in the preliminary inquiry. They were charge sheeted, and evidence was recorded . After giving them opportunity of being heard, the Inquiry Officer held that charge against the present Appellant Sudhir Kaushik, and one Rakesh Nigam were proved. The District Judge, awarded punishment of lowering the pay scale of Rakesh Nigam and Sudhir Kaushik from pay scale 4000-6000 to pay scale 3050-4590, vide its order dated 18.11.2008. Rakesh Nigam did not prefer any appeal but Sudhir Kaushik (present Appellant) filed departmental appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2011, passed by Administrative Judge, Dehradun. Aggrieved by the order, writ petition No. 129 of 2011 (S/S) was filed by the present Appellant which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.03.2011.

We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant, and learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. From the perusal of the record of the writ petition in which all the relevant papers are annexed, it is clear that the writ Petitioner was given due opportunity of being heard, and there appears no illegality in holding him guilty with another employee Rakesh Nigam. As far as the punishment awarded by the District Judge is concerned, in our opinion same too does not appear disappropriate to the charge found to be proved. However, learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to Fundamental Rule 29 of Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part II to IV wherein it is required that while lowering down the pay scale of a employee in the punishment order it should be specified that for what period the employee shall remain in such scale. In our opinion the order of punishment passed by District Judge requires clarification to that effect.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the observation that the District Judge, Dehradun, shall specify the period for which the pay scale of Appellant is lowered as required under Fundamental Rule 29 of Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part II to IV, and his representation may be disposed of which is said to be pending with the District Judge. (Stay application No. 2676 of 2011, also stands disposed of).