Uttarakhand High Court
Anubhav Gupta vs Director on 18 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 356 of 2022 (S/S)
Anubhav Gupta ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Director, Primary Education, State of Uttarakhand and
others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the
order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the respondent no.4,
by which, the petitioner has been put under suspension.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in
Government Primary School. In the process of verification
of educational qualification, with regard to documents
submitted by the petitioner, an inquiry was contemplated.
The petitioner was placed under suspension on
18.03.2021. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report
on 08.10.2021 and found that the documents submitted
by the petitioner are genuine and a recommendation was
made that his suspension may be revoked. On
13.10.2021, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked
and he was required to join his duties which he did on
16.10.2021. But again, by the impugned order, he was
placed under suspension. These facts were noticed by this
Court initially when the matter was taken up and the
operation of the suspension order was kept in abeyance.
Now, the State has also filed counter affidavit. It does not
reveal anything. Simply, it supports the averments that
have been made by the petitioner in connection with the
first suspension order dated 18.03.2021. It is undisputed
that earlier also the petitioner was placed under
suspension, inquiry was conducted and his suspension
was revoked and he had joined the duties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that once inquiry had already been completed by
the department qua the petitioner and again the
suspension order has been passed without any reason.
5. The Court today, wanted to know from the
learned State counsel, as to what has been done post to
the impugned suspension order? Has any inquiry been
completed? Or; is underway? And; if it is so, what are the
averments in the counter affidavit?
6. He would submit that a written instruction has
been received. The written instruction is taken on record.
7. Learned State counsel would submit that the
counter affidavit has been filed in the year 2022.
Thereafter, the case has been listed today. He would
submit that, as per instructions received from Sri
Ashutosh Bhandari, District Education Officer,
respondent no.4, inquiry has not proceeded in the matter
because the suspension order was stayed by the Court.
8. This Court has not stayed any departmental
proceeding that was ever contemplated against the
petitioner. What the Court did is just kept the suspension
order in abeyance. The reason for it was that earlier also
on the similar ground the petitioner was suspended on
18.03.2021 and an inquiry was conducted, of which, the
report was given on 08.10.2021 and the suspension was
revoked.
9. On a similar issue, the petitioner was earlier
suspended. The inquiry was conducted, in which, it was
found that the certificates are genuine and thereafter, by
the order dated 13.10.2021, the suspension order was
revoked and he joined his services on 16.10.2021. The
impugned suspension order was passed on 09.02.2022. It
is more than three years now. The inquiry has yet not
initiated. There is no reason to ascertain anything more
except to quash the suspension order. Accordingly, the
petition deserves to be allowed.
10. The petition is allowed.
11. The impugned suspension order is set aside.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.03.2025
Sanjay
