2025:UHC:9761-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No. 343 of 2025 06 November, 2025 Committee of Management and Another --Appellants Versus Arjun Singh and Others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/2 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT : (Per Sri G. NARENDAR, C.J.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The Committee of Management / appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the interim order dated 15.10.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, after analyzing the facts and the material before him, has been 1 2025:UHC:9761-DB pleased to stay the order of suspension and while granting interim relief has been pleased to observe that there is absolutely no material. Even in the appeal, the appellant is not able to place any material apart from stating that the Committee of Management had lodged the complaint with the Police. 3. The learned Senior Counsel would attempt to justify the appeal on the premise that the death of a 17 year old student of the College came about in suspicious circumstances and that the parents disposed of the body within two hours and that it could be a case of honor killing. 4. If that is the case then we are unable to appreciate as to why the private respondent ought to be placed under suspension. If the Police are not acting on a complaint, then it is always open for the complainant to approach the appellate authority or seek recourse in a manner known to law and by no stretch of imagination can it be held that a Committee of Management or any other civil authority has the wherewithal or the jurisdiction to investigate a crime. If it is the case of appellant that the private respondent is the reason behind the deceased student’s suicide then it is not within their domain or jurisdiction to investigate or to pronounce on the 2 2025:UHC:9761-DB commission of crime or his guilt. 5. In that view, the impugned order staying the order of suspension, in our opinion, is only a partial relief. In fact, the permission to continue with the inquiry, in our prima facie opinion, could not have been granted. Anyway as the private respondent is not in appeal, we desist from observing any further on the merits of the same. There being no ground warranting interference with the considered interim order, the appeal stands rejected. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 06.11.2025 R/SS 3