IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 236 of 2008 Ram Lakhan Nigam S/o Sri Khedu Ram, G-4, Staff Colony, IDM Hostel Campus, Sunehra Road, Roorkee, District Hardwar ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Technical Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand. 2. Chairman, Board of Management, K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Director, Technical Education, Srinagar, Garhwal (Enquiry Officer). .…...……. Respondents WITH Writ Petition (S/B) No. 162 of 2009 Sh.Ram Lakhan Nigam S/o Shri Khedu Ram, G-4, Staff Colony, IDM Hostel Campus, Sunehra Road, Roorkee, District Haridwar ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary, (Technical Education), Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar through the Chairman, Board of Management, K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Sh. D.B. Goel, Chairman, Board of Management K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Mittal, Member, Board of Management, K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar. (Enquiry Officer). 5. Director, Technical Education, Srinagar, Garhwal. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl.Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent/State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2 Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 19.11.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) These two writ petitions are by the same person, who was the Principal of the respondent-Polytechnic College. The first writ petition challenges the order of suspension. We are of the view that there is hardly any scope of interference in the said writ petition, inasmuch as, the order makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority, namely, the Managing Committee of the College, had power to suspend an employee in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. We, accordingly, dispose of the said writ petition without any interference. 2. The second writ petition challenges the order of dismissal. It appears that on 21st April 2009, a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioner gave a reply thereto on 25th May, 2009. Subsequent thereto an Inquiry Officer was appointed, but the said Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry without giving the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceeding. It further appears that the Inquiry Officer, while concluding the inquiry proceeding, relied upon a preliminary inquiry report, which resulted in issuance of the chargesheet. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has dismissed the petitioner. The said order of dismissal is not sustainable, inasmuch as, petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend the charges as were levelled against him. In those circumstances, we quash the order of dismissal and, accordingly, revive the status of the petitioner as was prevalent immediately prior to issuance of the order of dismissal. The petitioner shall, therefore, be deemed to be on suspension and continue to remain suspended for a period of six months from today. The disciplinary authority is directed 3 to appoint an Inquiry Officer, who shall conduct inquiry in accordance with law and after observing the rules of natural justice. The disciplinary authority is requested to complete the disciplinary proceeding, after completion of the inquiry, within a period of six months from today. In the event, however, the disciplinary proceeding is not concluded within a period of six months from today, the order of suspension shall automatically stand revoked and the respondent- Polytechnic College shall permit the petitioner to resume his duties. It goes without saying that the arrears of subsistence allowance shall be paid to the petitioner as quickly as possible but not later than the first date to be fixed for holding the inquiry. The respondent-Polytechnic College shall also pay future subsistence allowance in accordance with Rules on monthly basis. It is made clear that in the event, the petitioner, despite notice, refuses to participate in the inquiry, it shall be open to the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex parte. 3. This disposes of the second writ petition. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.11.2010 P. Singh