IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 325 of 2008 (S/B) Dr. Shool Chand S/o Late Sri Mahroop Presently posted as Principal Government Inter College Jhankat (Khatima) District Udham Singh Nagar. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Director, School Education Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Additional Director, School Education Kumaon Region, Nainital. 4. Sri Pramod Kumar Jaiswal serving as Assistant Teacher (Science/ Mathematics), Government Inter College Jhankat (Khatima) District Udham Singh Nagar. .……….Respondents. Shri Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Coram:Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Oral:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 16.12.2008, passed by respondent No. 1. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Principal in the Government Inter College, Jhankat 2 Tehsil –Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent No. 4 Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, is Assistant Teacher in said college. One Surendra Singh Yadav, is also Assistant Teacher, who is examination In- charge of Home Examinations in the college. Earlier Shri S.S. Yadav was placed under suspension for manipulations in the answer sheets of the Home Examination. However, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that on conclusion of inquiry against him, he has been awarded a minor punishment giving him censure entry as is apparent from annexure-2 to the writ petition. Petitioner is placed under suspension in respect of the similar charge. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner drew attention of this Court to the sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, which reads as under:- “4. (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant 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 3 class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts 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’ posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this Rule to the next lower authority.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since for a similar misconduct, Surendra Singh Yadav, Assistant Teacher, has been awarded minor punishment, the petitioner, who is a Principal should not have been placed under suspension. The joint preliminary inquiry report dated 28.12.2007, submitted by District Education Officer, Additional District Education Officer (Basic) and Sub Divisional Magistrate, copy of which is annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner were not found true except relating to the answer sheets of Class VIII relating to which the preliminary finding was that manipulations were made in the marks by Surendra Singh Yadav under supervision of the Principal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and if the teachers have increased the marks for showing the better results, the petitioner is not responsible for it. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- 4 1. The petitioner may make a representation against the suspension order to the Secretary, Education, Government of Uttarakhand, within a period of 15 days. 2. Said authority on receipt of representation shall decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of said representation along with certified copy of the order, in accordance with rules. 3. Simultaneously, it is directed that the inquiry against the petitioner shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:05.03.2009 Sweta 5 6 7 8 9 10