KISHORE KUMAR S/O LATE SRI RAMKRIPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-3
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 04,2013

Kishore Kumar S/O Late Sri Ramkripal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Sharma, Brief Holder on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought following relief:- (1) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 19-12-2012 along with its effect and operation. (2) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the provisions of Regulation 69-A of U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officer) Service Regulation 1981 as ultra virus and also running contrary to the provision of Model Standing Order framed under the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Order Act 1946. (3) To issue a writ or direction appropriate in the nature and award a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs for malicious and malafide act of the respondents and direct to recover the same from the personal salary of the erring officers, who are instrumental to such type of illegal act. (4) To issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (5) award cost of petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.3 in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 69-A of U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation 1981, disagreeing with the order of disciplinary authority, suo-motu proposed the enhanced punishment of removal of the petitioner and asking him to submit its reply within 15 days and the power exercised by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction and beyond the time limit in view of provision- second of Regulation 69-A of U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation 1981. The Proviso- second provides that if enhancement in the penalty imposed whereby any power on its own motion, or otherwise, shall not call for the record beyond the period of three months from the date of order in appeal. In the instant case, prima facie it appears that the record was summoned for enhancement of punishment after a period of three months, therefore, the respondents shall file the counter affidavit in four weeks. Thereafter two weeks time is allowed to petitioner to file the rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) LIST after winter vacation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.