HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 622 of 2004 (SS) Gulshan Kumar s/o Sri Raja Ram R/o Balwant Colony, Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Executive Director, Kichha Sugar Co. 2. Chief Accountant, Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd; Kichcha, Udham Singh Nagar …………..Respondents Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 8.2.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.A. Khan, counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.5.2004 passed by the respondent no.1. Briefly stated according to the case of the petitioner he was appointed in Kichcha Sugar Co. in class III and at present he is posted as Assistant Cashier. On 29.4.2004 the Chief Accountant, Kichha Sugar Company Ltd; Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar lodged a first information report in the Police Station against the petitioner for alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs.3,08,921.10 and a case under 2 section 409 I.P.C. was registered against him in case crime No.184 of 2004. Thereafter on 6.5.2004 the Executive Director, Kichha Sugar Company Ltd; passed an order by which he placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that the police is investigating the matter against the petitioner. The respondents filed counter affidavit and has stated that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,08,921.10 and has not paid the same inspite of the letter dated 26.04.2004. The charges against the petitioner were of grave misconduct as such he was placed under suspension on 6.5.2004. Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, the petitioner has been subsequently served with the charge sheet dated 12.7.2004 and departmental enquiry against the petitioner is on progress which is going to be completed very soon. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order has been passed on the ground that the criminal case is going on against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no evidence at all the prove the charge of embezzlement against the petitioner and charge sheet has not been filed in the criminal case against the petitioner nor the petitioner is in jail. There is no apprehension of tempering with the evidence by the petitioner. Therefore, the suspension order against the petitioner has been passed only to harass him. The alleged incident of embezzlement is said to have taken place in the month of April 2004. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 6.5.2004 and departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner. Since for about more than 10 months neither investigation in the criminal case has completed 3 nor departmental enquiry has come to end. The petitioner has also submitted that both the parallel proceedings cannot be continued at the same time as the evidence in both the proceedings is common and one is going to prejudice another. However, the suspension of the petitioner from service for a considerably long period does not appear to be proper. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to make a representation to the respondents for revocation of the suspension order within one week after the receipt of certified copy of this order. The authority concerned shall decide the same within one week thereafter. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated: 8.2.2006 Rajesh Tandon J. *Dhyani