2025:UHC:3506-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 06th MAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION (SB)NO. 130 OF 2025 Vinay Sharma …...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Ms. Pallavi Bahuguna, Ms. Irum Zeba and Mr. Rafat Munir, learned counsel. Counsel for the Union of India : Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. J.S. Bisht and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-1), whereby a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner for imposing major penalty as per the relevant rules. 2. The grounds to challenge the impugned charge- sheet, canvassed by the petitioner, are that he is being continuously harassed by the respondent-Institute and earlier, he was issued a show cause notice and along with it, he was put under suspension, which he challenged by preferring Writ Petition (S/B) No. 549 of 2024 ‘Vinay Sharma vs. Sandeep Singh and another’ before this Court, 1 2025:UHC:3506-DB and this Hon’ble Court, vide its order dated 03.09.2024, stayed the suspension of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that the respondents had refused to relieve him for joining on the post of Registrar on deputation in A.I.I.M.S., Rajkot and only after this Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to relieve the petitioner, they issued a wrong relieving order, due to which, he was not taken on deputation thereafter. 4. Now by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-1). 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned charge-sheet, and in our considered opinion, the same is specific and there appears no ambiguity therein. 6. Keeping in view that the charges leveled against the petitioner are clear and there is no ambiguity in the charge-sheet, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned charge-sheet does not require any interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 2 2025:UHC:3506-DB 6. No order as to costs. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 06th May, 2025 Rathour 3 PRAVIND RA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779 d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946ee d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A 40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD 5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.05.13 11:17:00 +05'30'