IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 183 of 2007 Suresh Pal Singh …..Petitioner/Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …..Respondents. Present : Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, an employee of the irrigation department of the State of Uttarakhand, has been dismissed by an order dated 20.8.2004. Prior thereto, he was suspended on 31.7.2003. The writ petitioner approached this Court at the stage when suspension order was issued but the dismissal order was not issued. The Court stayed the suspension order and accordingly petitioner was reinstated before the order of dismissal was passed. Today, therefore, the principal question is whether the order dismissing the petitioner is sustainable or not. The fact remains, as is evident from records produced in Court, that the chargesheet issued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was sent by registered post with A.D. but could not be served upon the petitioner. The same was, therefore, attempted to be served once again by Speed Post. Again, the attempt was in vain. In the circumstances, an advertisement was published in the newspaper “Amar Ujala”. In the advertisement, it was noted that the chargesheet could not be served upon the petitioner despite two attempts were made, one by registered post and the other by “speed post”. It was contended in the advertisement that in the circumstances, the advertisement is being published in order to inform the petitioner that he can submit his reply to the chargesheet within seven days from the date of publication of the advertisement, failing which it shall be deemed that the petitioner has nothing further to say to the charges levelled against him. 2. Inasmuch as, the said state of affair clearly depicts that the petitioner was never informed of the charges, the petitioner could not be dismissed from service inasmuch as sub Article (2) of the Article 311 of 2 the Constitution of India mandates the State to inform its employee the charges against him before dismissing such an employee. 3. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the order of dismissal dated 20.8.2004. We direct the learned counsel for the State to handover a copy of the chargesheet to the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today. Copy of the chargesheet has been handed over in the Court. The petitioner will be permitted to reply to the chargesheet within one month from today. The State is directed to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible. The order staying the suspension is vacated and accordingly the petitioner shall be deemed to be on suspension with effect from 20.8.2004, on which date the petitioner was purportedly dismissed from service. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 04.10.2010 Avneet