HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1328 of 2025 Sumit Giri ….....Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and another .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the suspension order dated 12.02.2025, passed by the respondent no.2/Superintendent Engineer, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (“the UPCL”) as well as the charge sheets dated 03.06.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer with the UPCL. On 12.02.2025, without taking permission and without prior information, he absented himself, which was treated as an act of negligence in connection with recovery of arrears of electricity dues. Therefore, by the impugned suspension order 12.02.2025, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently, he was served with a charge sheet on 03.06.2025, which is part of Annexure 12. In fact, in Annexure 12, there is another charge sheet of the same date i.e. 0.06.2025, in which, charges are different. They relate to collection of revenue and non deposition of it, on time. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence on one day that too on a gazetted holiday, may not invite major penalty and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension in accordance with Rule 4 of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (“the 1999 Rules”), which have been adopted by the UPCL. Therefore, he submits that the suspension order should be quashed. He submits that both the charge sheets dated 03.06.2025 are product of the suspension order 12.02.2025, therefore, they also deserve to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the UPCL submits that the 1999 Rules, which have been adopted by the UPCL does not, as such, make any hindrance of placing a person under suspension though, he very fairly admits that generally, this should not be resorted to, unless the act may entail a major penalty. He submits that though the petitioner had remained absent on multiple occasions without permission, but in the instant matter, the suspension was done merely on one day’s absence. He submits that even if his suspension order is set aside, there are two separate inquiries proceeding against the petitioner, which must continue and in another inquiry, there are grave charges against the petitioner. But, the petitioner has not been placed under suspension because he had already been placed under suspension on 12.02.2025. He submits that quashing of instant suspension should not restrict the UPCL to resort to such action, as is permissible under law, qua different charges. 6. Rule 4 (1) of the 1999 Rules, reads as follows:- “4. Suspension- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under 3 suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty; Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servants or class of Government Servant belonging to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under suspension under this rule: Provided also that in the case Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority.” 7. The suspension has graver consequences. Definitely, it should not be resorted to, unless the allegations are serious. In fact, Rule 4 of the 1999 Rules provides that it could be resorted to only if the allegations are serious and in the event of their being established, they ordinarily warrant major penalty. 8. In the instant case, mere one day absence has been given a cause for suspension. Therefore, suspension order may not be maintained any more. 9. Insofar as, charge sheets are concerned, there is no reason to quash them. Based on one day absence also, a person may be departmentally proceeded against. What is being argued on behalf of the UPCL is that the petitioner is a habitual person who remains absent without prior permission. Undoubtedly, in the charge sheet, one has to be given an opportunity of hearing in his defence. This Court has no doubt that the UPCL would give the treatment to the petitioner and conduct the proceedings in accordance with the rules. 4 10. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the charge sheets dated 03.06.2025. 11. Accordingly, the suspension order is set aside. 12. The writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. 13. However, the suspension order shall not restrict the UPCL to proceed against the petitioner on other allegations, in accordance with the rules. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.08.2025 Jitendra