2025:UHC:57-DB SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.801 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms. Snigdha Tiwari and Mr. Arman Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India/ respondent No.1. 3. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent Nos.2 & 3. 4. Petitioner is Member of Indian Forest Service. He was put under suspension. He challenged suspension order by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Department of forest to take decision on petitioner’s representation, within three months. 5. Petitioner has again filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction of mandamus to the respondent State directing it to take cognizance of and act upon the order dated 28th May 2024 (Annexure No.5) by the Government of India to the respondent state clearly stating that the suspension of the petitioner beyond the first month was not approved as confirmation for extension of suspension was not granted within 30 days and further there was no provision of granting confirmation retrospectively after 30 days. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the suspension order dated 23rd August 2023 (Annexure No.1) based on the orders dated 28th May 2024 (Annexure No.5), 25th May 2016 (Annexure No.8), and 23rd August 2016 (Annexure No.9) issued by the Government of India to the respondent state. 2025:UHC:57-DB iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to comply with the letter and spirit of the final order and judgment dated 10th April 2024 (Annexure No.10) as pronounced in WPSB 152 of 2024. 6. Petitioner relies upon a letter dated 28.05.2024 issued by Government of India to the State Government for contending that continued suspension beyond a certain period is not sustainable. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner has remedy of approaching Central Administrative Tribunal, as he is member of All India Service. 8. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 9. Since, petitioner has a statutory remedy of approaching the Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.01.2025 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f 6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F922 9D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.01.04 11:17:01 +05'30'