HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.504 of 2010 (S/S) Attar Singh Rathod S/ o Dulat Singh Rathod ………Petitioner Ver su s State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. Dated :-0 1st J u ly, 20 10 H on ’ble Tar u n Aga r wa la , J . Heard Mr. M. C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 21.06.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, the composite order of suspension and the order of appointment of an enquiry officer cannot be done in as much as the enquiry officer can only be appointed in the event the petitioner fails to submit a reply to the suspension order. A perusal of sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, indicate that there is no embargo upon the disciplinary authority in not issuing a composite order of suspension and appointment of an inquiry officer. It is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to appoint the inquiry officer to consider the charges leveled against the petitioner. This court does not find any infirmity in the suspension order. The petition fails and is dismissed. (Ta r u n Aga r wa la, J .) Dated 01.07.2010 LSR