Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13952 (UTT)

NEERAJ GUNWANT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/952/2024 · 2025-12-01

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:10710 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/952/2024 With WPSS/1361/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate for petitioner in WPSS/1361/2024. Mr. Rahul Verma, Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 952 of 2024 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered. 3. Petitioner was given compassionate appointment as Chowkidar after death of his father, who was serving as Assistant Logging Officer in Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. 4. Petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 16.05.2024, passed by General Manager, Kumaon on the charge that petitioner did not maintain proper accounts which led to huge financial loss to the Corporation. 5. Petitioner challenged the suspension order 2025:UHC:10710 mainly on the ground that since he was appointed as Chowkidar and thereafter promoted as Scalar on 13.06.2022, therefore, he cannot be fastened with the liability of non maintenance of accounts, as it is not part of duties of Scalar. 6. Coordinate Bench of this Court granted interim order in favour of petitioner on 24.06.2024, which is still continuing. 7. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation submits that departmental enquiry so initiated against petitioner is nearing completion. 8. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by providing that departmental enquiry initiated against petitioner shall be concluded, as early as possible. 9. Till conclusion of departmental enquiry, impugned suspension order passed against petitioner(s), shall be kept in abeyance. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 01.12.2025 Mahinder/ 2025:UHC:10710