HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 994 of 2024 (S/S) Dinesh Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ……..... Respondents Present : Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the suspension order dated 16.05.2024, passed by the respondent no.2, Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as a Transport Assistant Inspector working with the respondent department. He was given a show cause notice, as to why he remained absent for five days. When he went to submit his explanation, one Umed Singh misbehaved with him, of which, the petitioner made a complaint on 14.05.2024. Thereafter, he was served with the suspension order, in which, there is no mention of the incident, which took place with Umed Singh. 4. According to the respondent authorities, the petitioner remained absent for many days. He was called to submit his explanation. The petitioner visited the desk of the Establishment 2 Section where he misbehaved with an employee, of which, a written complaint has been made. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that now, after inquiry, charge-sheet has also been submitted against him. He would submit that in the near future decision on the charge-sheet may be taken. 6. The Rules that governs suspension are the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. Rule 4 of it provides as follows:- “4. Suspension - (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. It will be clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted: Provided that suspension should not be restored to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of these being established may be normally the basis of major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ under suspension under this Rule: Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ the Appointing Authority may delegate his power under this Rule to the next lower authority. (2) ……………………………………………………………. (3) ……………………………………………………………. (4) ……………………………………………………………. (5) ……………………………………………………………. 3 (6) ……………………………………………………………. (7) ……………………………………………………………. (8) ……………………………………………………………. (9) …………………………………………………………….” (emphasis supplied) 7. A bare perusal of Rule 4 Sub Rule (1) makes it abundantly clear that in case of suspension of a government servant, it will be clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted. 8. Admittedly, such endorsement was not made in the impugned suspension order, which makes it bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside on that count only. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. The impugned suspension order is set aside. However, the respondent authorities shall continue with the inquiry, which has been done in the matter. 10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Sanjay