2025:UHC:8649-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2025 Narendra Kumar Sharma & another …...Appellants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The writ petition came to be disposed of by the following order:- “(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out several instances of corrupt practices by such officers including respondent no. 4 and 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have made complaints from time to time to the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, but no decision has been taken so far. (4) Having regard to seriousness of allegations made by the petitioners, writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to make a representation to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Uttarakhand. If they make such representation within ten days from today, Commissioner shall have the allegations in the representation enquired and if some substance is found in the allegations, then he shall take necessary action under the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules, applicable to government employees. This Court hopes and expects that the entire exercise shall be 1 2025:UHC:8649-DB completed, after affording opportunity of hearing to concerned officers, within three months from the date of receipt of representation.” 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the concerned officer, after issuance of the order of appointment of an inquiry officer, has started bringing enormous pressure on the fair price shop dealers and has also indulged in cancellation of the licenses. 4. It is apparent that the authority to grant or cancel the license to run fair price depot is vested in the District Magistrate under the control orders, and the action of cancellation of fair price shop by the concerned officer alone would suffice to attribute malafides against the officer. 5. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that though the impugned order does not warrant interference, we are of the opinion that, additionally, the Competent Authority- Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, may also look into the aspect of shifting the concerned officer to a non-executive post to prevent him from indulging in further mischief. 6. We permit the appellants to submit a comprehensive representation including a prayer for shifting of the concerned officer to a non-executive post, and 2 2025:UHC:8649-DB thereby, curtail his reach to unduly influence the witnesses. If such representation is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of within seven days. 7. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 25th September, 2025 NISHANT 3