Satya Prakash Kuril vs. G.B. Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology Pantnagar And Others

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated July 14, 2018, was vulnerable on the ground that it did not disclose that the petitioner's explanation had been considered. The Court found this ground to be tenable and inclined to quash the impugned order solely on this basis. The reasoning was that the order did not demonstrate due consideration of the petitioner's submitted explanation before imposing censure and effecting a transfer. The ratio decidendi is that administrative orders imposing penalties or effecting transfers based on disciplinary proceedings must clearly show that the employee's explanation has been considered. The Court quashed the impugned order with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order as per law, without interfering with the show-cause notice. All contentions of the petitioner raised in objections to the show-cause notice were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, Satya Prakash Kuril, a Deputy Comptroller, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated May 11, 2018, and an order dated July 14, 2018, passed by the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. The show-cause notice was issued regarding alleged disobedience of the Vice Chancellor's directions concerning GST-related works and engaging M/S Lasa Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner submitted a reply. The impugned order, issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, stated that the petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory, found his conduct against the Uttarakhand State Employees Conduct Niyamawali-2002, imposed allegations under the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Niyamawali-2003, and ordered his transfer on administrative grounds. The order also included the transfer of another officer, Shri Satish Chandra.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 14, 2018, is bad in law for being unreasoned and whimsical, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's representation, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary and did not demonstrate consideration of his explanation. The respondents, represented by the University, argued that the transfer was merely an incident of service within the same campus. 2. Whether the transfer of the petitioner, effected by the same order that imposed censure, is punitive in nature, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner complained that the transfer was punitive and intrinsically linked to the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents submitted that the transfer was within the same campus and an incident of service, and that a counter-affidavit might not be necessary.