HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1243 of 2025 (S/S) Siddhartha Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief 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 28.05.2025, by which, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suspension is governed by the provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 (“the 2003 Rules”) and as per Rule 4 of it, whenever suspension is invoked, it may only be done, if an inquiry is contemplated and the suspension order should also mention categorically that the charges against the concerned government servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted. He would submit that in the instant case, suspension order does not meet the requirement of Rule 4(1) of the 2003 Rules. The Rule 4 of the 2003 Rules reads 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 2 clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted: Provided that suspension should not be resorted 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 its power under this Rule to the next lower authority. ……………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………….” 4. Learned State Counsel admits that suspension order does not meet the requirement of Rule 4 of the 2003 Rules. He submits that in case, the petition is allowed right now, the respondents may be given liberty to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. 5. The suspension admittedly, is governed by the 2003 Rules. Rule 4 of it is specifically for suspension. Suspension is not a routine exercise. Based on the circumstances, suspension may be invoked, one of which is contemplated inquiry. Rule 4 requires that it has to be clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted. In the impugned suspension order, it is not so recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the view that while setting aside the impugned suspension order, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The petition is allowed. 3 7. The impugned Suspension Order dated 28.05.2025 is set aside. However, the respondents are free to pass a fresh order, if it is permissible, in accordance with law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.08.2025 Sanjay