2026:UHC:2226-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 31th March, 2026 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 175 of 2026 Dinesh Vyas ------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. Mr. Rajeev Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/ respondents no. 1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. C.S.Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no.4. JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. Heard Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C., Mr. Rajeev Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/ respondent no. 1 to 3, and Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. C.S.Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. The petitioner is Assistant Professor in Swami Vivekanand Government Post Graduate College, Lohaghat. He was holding the charge of Examination-in- Charge of the college. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.03.2026 issued by respondent no.3 wherein certain adverse observations have been made 1 2026:UHC:2226-DB against the conduct of the petitioner, and he has been removed from the additional charge of Examination-in- Charge of the respondent-college. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that the petitioner is not aggrieved by his removal from the additional charge of Examination-in- Charge, as he has no vested right to hold the same, but by the allegations of misconduct levelled against him in the said order. He submits that the said allegations have been levelled without holding any inquiry. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, i.e., respondent-University and learned State counsel representing respondent no.3 have no objection in case it is clarified that the observations recorded in the order dated 13.03.2026 would not be read against him unless proper inquiry on the said charges is held and any of the said charges are proved against him. 5. Accordingly, without interfering with the order dated 13.03.2026, we dispose of the writ petition with the clarification that the allegations made against the petitioner in the said order dated 13.03.2026 shall not be 2 2026:UHC:2226-DB read against him unless, of course, proper inquiry is made and any of the charges are found established there. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 31.03.2026 Kaushal 3