Uttarakhand High Court
Siddhartha Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
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
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.
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
