Satya Prakash Kuril vs G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar and others

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash show-cause notice dated 11.05.2018 and also order dated 14.07.2018. By the impugned notice, the

petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him. The petitioner gave his reply, which is produced as Annexure

No. 8 to this writ petition. It is, thereafter, that the impugned order has been passed. The translation of the same reads as follows:

G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,

Pantnagar-263145

Office of the Chief Personnel Officer

Letter No. PMA/C-6/2018/2333 Dated: July 14, 2018

OFFICE ORDER

Deputy Comptroller S.P. Kureel not following the directions of Vice Chancellor regarding GST related works and got the work done by M/S Lasa

consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Rudrapur, which is clear disobey of the orders of Vice Chancellor. In this context, the explanation, which was given by Shri

Kureel, was not found satisfactory. This conduct of Shri Kureel is against the rule 3(1) and 3(2) of Uttarakhand State Employees Conduct

Niyamawali-2002. After giving due consideration to the said episode, Vice Chancellor has ensured his above act by imposing allegations on Shri

Kureel under the clause 3 (ka)/ek of Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Niyamawali-2003.

In addition to the above, Vice Chancellor has consented to transfer Shri Kureel on administrative grounds to the post of Deputy Comptroller University

farm after relieving him from Deputy Comptroller (Establishment), Deputy Comptroller office and Technology College with immediate effect. Deputy

Comptroller Dr. J.C. Badola will take the charge of Comptroller Office of Shri Kureel.

In addition, Vice-Chancellor has also consented to transfer, Account Officer Shri Satish Chandra, working in University farm, to College of

Technology, with immediate effect. The charge of Shri Kureel, related to Technology College will also be taken by Account Officer Shri Satish

Chandra; other duties of Shri Chandra will remain as such.

Above order will be implemented with immediate effect. Source of salary and other service condition of Shri S.P. Kureel and Shri Satish Chandra will

remain as such.

Above orders are in compliance with the ordes of Vice-Chancellor dated 14-07-2018.

(Ruchi Mohan Rayal)PCS

Chief Personnel Officerâ€​

We heard Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang

Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents/University.

One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad since it is totally unreasoned and whimsical

and since it provides no reason for rejecting the representation. When this matter came up today, it stood posted for admission. When we perused the

impugned order, we entertained the view that this ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is tenable. The Court felt that this order may

be vulnerable on the ground that it does not disclose that the explanation of the petitioner has been considered and yet the petitioner is visited with

Censure. Furthermore, the petitioner also has a complaint that by the very same order, the petitioner was transferred, which is punitive in nature.

No doubt, learned senior counsel for the respondents/University would submit that the transfer is only within the same campus and it is an incident

of service. It is quite clear that the order of transfer would not have been passed but for the proceedings, which culminated in the order of Censure as

the order of transfer is contained in the order by which the petitioner has been given a Censure. Learned senior counsel also got instructions and

submitted that counter affidavit may not be necessary to be filed.

Only on the ground that the impugned order does not disclose a consideration of the explanation, we are inclined to quash the impugned order with

liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order as per law. We do so. However, we make it clear that we are not interfering with the show-cause

notice. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner, as raised in the objections to the show-cause notice.

Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.