HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2156 of 2023 Ms. Saroj Pal ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bisht, Addl. CSC for the State. Judgment Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to suspension order of the petitioner dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure No. 1). 2. State was required to file counter affidavit on 30.11.2023. It has yet not been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The suspension order reveals that illicit liquor was recovered in an area in Dehradun, which was brought from Chandigarh and had hologram of the State of Uttarakhand affixed on it illegally. The suspension order records that the petitioner was found negligent in performing her duties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the area, from where illicit liquor was recovered, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the petitioner; earlier, the petitioner was posted in that area; when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was posted in Laksar area of district Haridwar. He would submit that the order of suspension was passed without application of mind. He 2 would also submit that, in fact, the suspension order was stayed by this Court on 30.11.2023. 6. As stated, the State has failed to file any counter affidavit. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to whether any inquiry has been instituted in the matter? Learned State Counsel would submit that there is no instruction on this aspect. 7. The respondents did not choose to file any counter affidavit. The suspension order was passed on 21.11.2023. What is being argued is that the petitioner was not posted in the area, from where the illicit liquor was recovered. She was posted in Laksar area of district Haridwar at the relevant point of time. These facts have not been rebutted by filing counter affidavit by the State. In fact, the suspension order does not record that any inquiry is contemplated. Even today, the learned State Counsel is not in a position to tell as to whether any inquiry has been initiated or not? In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 24.04.2025 Avneet/