HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32(2)(b) Description of the case. WP. No. 1117 (S/S) of 2005 Rishipal Saini Vs. District Magistrate, Haridwar and anr. Approved for reporting ___________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 14.02.2006 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1117 (SS) OF 2005 Rishipal Saini, Son of Sri Sugan Cand, Resident of City Magistrate, Court Compound, Haridwar, District- Haridwar. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. District Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Officer in Charge (Arms), Collectorate, Haridwar. …………….Respondents. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 16.04.2005 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.1. On 9th August, 2005 following order was passed:- “Heard Sri S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four week’s time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. Stay Application No. 5558 of 2005 Heard. 3 Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 16.04.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar and by the same order the SDM, Roorkee was appointed as Inquiry Officer and petitioner was attached to the office of SDM, Roorkee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the Government Order dated 12.05.2003 which specifically states that the employee, who has been put under suspension may be given charge-sheet within fifteen days from the date of initiation of inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that District Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 16.05.2005 appointed SDM, Roorkee as Inquiry Officer but has not supplied the necessary document relating the petitioner to SDM, Roorkee for further proceeding of the inquiry. On 07.07.2005, SDM, Roorkee wrote a letter to District Magistrate, Haridwar that due to non availability of necessary documents and preliminary report relating to the suspension order of the petitioner charge-sheet could not be issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension since 16.04.2005 and has yet not received chargesheet. In view of the above facts, unitl further order of this court operation of suspension order dated 16.04.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar is stayed. Inquiry Officer may proceed with the inquiry after obtaining relevant document from the office of District Magistrate, Haridwar and after issuing chargsheet. Respondents may pass appropriate order after the inquiry is concluded. Stay application is disposed of accordingly.” Counter affidavit has already been filed along with stay vacation application. 4 I do not find any ground for vacating the stay order. However, it will be desirable in the interest of justice that let the inquiry be completed and the order dated 9th August, 2005 staying the operation of suspension order dated 16th April, 2005 shall continue. However, the inquiry officer is directed to complete the inquiry within a period of six months and thereafter the disciplinary authority is also directed to pass appropriate order. Writ petition is disposed of along with the Stay Vacation application. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 14.02.2006 Rathour