WPSS/2199/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 6219 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/2199/2025 on 15 December, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                       2025:UHC:11191
                    Office Notes,
                 reports, orders or
                   proceedings or
SL. No.   Date                                             COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
                   directions and
                  Registrar's order
                  with Signatures
                                      WPSS/2199/2025
                                      With
                                      WPSS/2201/2025
                                      WPSS/2202/2025
                                      Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2025 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered.

3. Petitioner is serving as Junior Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purola, District Uttarkashi. He was put under suspension vide order dated 05.12.2025 on the charge of negligence while preparing voter list for municipal elections. Petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that there is no recital in the order that the charges against him are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty will be inflicted.

4. For making this submission, reliance is placed upon later half of Rule 4(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003, which is extracted below:

"4 (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under 2025:UHC:11191 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 servant 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 his power under this Rule to the next lower authority."

5. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Since aforesaid provision mandates that there should be a clear recital in the suspension order that in the event of charges being established, major penalty would be inflicted, therefore, non- mentioning of that stipulation in the suspension order would vitiate the suspension order.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned suspension order is quashed. However, it shall be open to the competent authority to pass fresh order, as per law.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.12.2025 Mahinder/