Sanjay Kumar Tamta Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Kumar Tamta Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed with directions: Competent Authority to decide the Inquiry Officer's report within four weeks of receipt of the order, failing which respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the inquiry report if otherwise eligible; no order as to costs; copy of the order to be circulated to respondent no. 2.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Disciplinary/Appointing Authority could sit over the Inquiry Officer's 2023 report for more than two years while promoting juniors past the petitioner, and what relief the petitioner is entitled to in respect of consideration for promotion.

Court's answer

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not conclusive; the conclusion of the inquiry lies with the acceptance of the report and the consequential imposition of penalty or otherwise.

Ratio / Principle

A mere indictment in the inquiry report is not a ground for the authorities to squat over the report or to permit juniors to leapfrog the petitioner interminably; the action of respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot be appreciated and a lag of more than two years to consider the report is wholly unjustified.

Key takeaways

If no action is taken on the inquiry report by the Competent Authority, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for the promotional post.ratio¶5
Direction: the Competent Authority shall expedite consideration of the report within four weeks from receipt of the order; failing that, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the inquiry report if he is otherwise eligible.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Departmental inquiry — Delay by Disciplinary/Appointing Authority in acting on Inquiry Officer's report. Held, the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not conclusive; the conclusion of the inquiry is reached only upon acceptance of the report and consequential imposition of penalty or otherwise. A mere indictment in the report is not a ground to squat over it or to permit juniors to leapfrog the delinquent employee interminably; a lag of more than two years in considering a 2023 report while two juniors were promoted was held wholly unjustified. Writ petition allowed: Competent Authority directed to expedite consideration of the report within four weeks of receipt of the order, failing which the respondents shall consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the inquiry report if he is otherwise eligible. No order as to costs; copy circulated to respondent no. 2.

2025:UHC:4492-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 160 OF 2025

th 4 June, 2025

Sanjay Kumar Tamta …… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and and Others …… Respondents

Presence:-

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel (through Video Conferencing) for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that a charge-sheet was issued in 2020 and, thereafter, inquiry came to be instituted and the Inquiry Officer has also submitted a report in 2023. Despite the passage of more than two years, it is alleged that no decision has been taken on the report, but, on the other hand, the respondent nos. 2 and

1

2025:UHC:4492-DB 3 have been taking action to promote his juniors and, in this manner, two of his juniors have been promoted.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that there are five cases and, in all the five cases, the inquiry report has affirmed the charges leveled against the petitioner.

Be that as it may, merely because the inquiry report indicts the petitioner is not a ground for the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority to squat over the report. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not conclusive and the conclusion of the inquiry is with the acceptance of the report and consequential imposition of penalty or otherwise. Mere report would not be a ground to permit the juniors to leapfrog the petitioner and that too interminably. The action of respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot be appreciated. A lag of more than two years to consider the report is wholly unjustified.

In the event, no action on the report is taken by the Competent Authority, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for the promotional post.

The Competent Authority shall expedite the consideration of the report within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the respondents

2

2025:UHC:4492-DB

are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner

for promotion without reference to the inquiry report if he is otherwise eligible.

The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Copy of this order be circulated to the 2^nd

respondent.

________________

G. NARENDAR, C.J.

____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.

Dt: 4^th June, 2025 Ujjwal

3