Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 743 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                         Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1140 of 2020

Abhishek Kumar                                                       ......... Petitioner

                                             Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others                                     .......Respondents

Present:
            Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. S.K. Mishra, D.A.G for the State.


                                       JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by District Magistrate Uttarkashi.

(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the months of July and August 2020.

(c) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) Award cost of the petition."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi. There was some dispute and an FIR was lodged against him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner was arrested. In view of deemed suspension, an order was passed on 19.07.2020 placing the petitioner under suspension.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would very fairly concede that initially when subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner, he has filed the instant petition. By virtue of an interim order dated 01.10.2020, the subsistence allowance was ordered to be paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that perhaps now the inquiry might have been concluded. Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction that in case yet the departmental proceedings has not been concluded, the respondents may be directed to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously.

7. In the counter affidavit at para-17 it has been noted that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance. Learned counsel for the State gives a statement that departmental proceedings shall definitely be concluded as expeditiously as possible, if already it has not been concluded.

8. The statements given by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are placed on record.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the departmental proceedings are still pending, it should be completed as expeditiously as possible.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.03.2021 Nahid