2026:UHC:3248 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1083/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in District Haridwar, vide order dated 31.03.2017. Petitioner has been put under suspension, vide order dated 06.04.2026 on the charge of fabricating marks in the CTET certificate. Petitioner has challenged the suspension order, issued by District Education Officer (Elementary), Dehradun, on 06.04.2026. 4. It is contended that as per the marksheet issued by Director, Central Board of Secondary Education, petitioner scored 81 marks in Paper-I and 84 marks in Paper-II of Central Teachers Eligibility Test-I and the said marksheet is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the information given by petitioner regarding marks scored by him in CTET-I was verified from the website of CBSE and then it was found that petitioner had scored only 65 marks in Paper-I and 60 marks in Paper-II of CTET-I, which is a serious anomaly, therefore, petitioner has been rightly put under suspension, as he secured appointment by furnishing incorrect information. 2026:UHC:3248 6. Law is well settled that suspension is not a punishment and it is a devise adopted by employer to prevent the employee from tampering with evidence and otherwise influencing the witnesses. 7. Since the enquiry is yet to be held to bring home the charge against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and for Scheduled Tribe candidates, only 40% marks are needed in CTET/TET-I, therefore, petitioner would be eligible for appointment even with 60% & 65% marks in Paper-I and Paper-II of CTET- I, therefore, there was no occasion for petitioner to manipulate the marks in CTET-I. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that charge-sheet has not been filed so far, therefore, some reasonable time be given for concluding the disciplinary enquiry. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the competent authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, if initiated within 15 days, as early as possible. It is made clear that if disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within three months, then the suspension order passed against petitioner shall stand revoked. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e 4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0 95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.29 16:47:47 +05'30'