Rajeev Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 140 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Rajeev Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Writ Petition No. 427 of 2024 (S/S)
Rajeev Pandey                                              ..........Petitioner

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                      ........ Respondents
Present :   Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.


                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

suspension approval order dated 02.03.2022, passed by

the respondent no.3, the Chief Education Officer,

Dehradun, and suspension order dated 03.03.2022,

passed by the respondent no.5, the Committee of

Management, through its Manager, Sanjay Public Inter

College, Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

working as Assistant Teacher, Social Studies, in the

Sanjay Public Inter College, Karbari, Dehradun, which is

under the respondent no.5, the Committee of

Management. By the impugned order, he was suspended,

which is challenged. It is more than three years now that

the suspension orders are in existence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that on 18.03.2024, the suspension orders were

stayed by the order of the Court, but despite that, the

suspension orders have not been revoked by the

petitioner.

5. On 30.04.2025, this Court had posed two

questions to learned State Counsel, which are as follows:-

"(i) Whether any enquiry has been contemplated?

(ii) If any enquiry has been contemplated, has it progressed further? If so, give its details."

6. Today learned State Counsel gives a statement

that the respondent no.5, the Committee of Management,

has submitted the enquiry report on 06.02.2025. Now a

final decision is to be taken on it in the near future.

7. The petitioner was suspended three years back.

On 18.03.2024, this Court had stayed the operation of

the suspension orders, but now the enquiry has been

completed. No purpose would be served if the suspension

orders are kept alive now. Therefore, to that extent, the

writ petition deserves to be allowed, accordingly.

8. The writ petition is allowed.

9. The impugned suspension orders are set aside.

10. However, the respondent-authority shall take a

decision on the enquiry report without any delay.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Ravi Bisht