IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 297 (SS) OF 2006 Pyare Lal Verma, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Lochan Ram Sharma, Presently posted as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat-Mahtosh, Block-Gadarpur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. …………….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Gram Vikas, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Zila Vikas Adhikari, Udham Singh Nagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. …………Respondents. Sri D.S.Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Dated: 07.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Both the parties have agreed that let the matter be finally disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the respondent, Zila Vikas Adhikari, Udham Singh Nagar. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Village Development Officer in Jaspur Block on 01.11.1999. After completing the training, the petitioner was posted at Village Raipur and subsequently in the month of October, 2004 petitioner was posted at Dharampur. According to the case of the petitioner, one Smt. Krishna Devi applied for a death certificate of her late husband Sri Nanhe alias Chandrapal Singh son of Sri Hasbansh Kale and in the family register, it was stated that Nanhe alias Chandrapal Singh, son of Sri Harbansh Kaale died on 20.05.2003 and the petitioner was issued a death certificate on 17.02.2004. 2 Thereafter, it was revealed that Smt. Krishna Devi has earlier married to one Nanhe son of Harbansh Singh, resident of Village-Ramuwala Sekhu, Post Office-Suraj Nagar, District- Moradabad and on account of mental disbalance Smt. Krishna Devi left him. Subsequently, Smt. Krishna Devi married Nanhe alias Chandrapal Singh, son of Sri Harbansh Kaale who died on 20.05.2003 and in whose favour the death certificate was issued. The petitioner was suspended vide order 27.02.2006 passed by the petitioner. In S.K. Goel Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, 2005 (2) U.D.11, the Division Bench has observed as under:- “Hence, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority t consider whether a transfer of the officer will be sufficient or whether suspension itself is required.” In view of the aforesaid proposition of the Division Bench, the satisfaction of the authority is sin-qua-none for suspending the officer concerned. The petitioner may cooperate with the inquiry. However, the suspension order dated 27th February, 2006 shall remain in abeyance till the completion of the inquiry. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter is sent back to the Disciplinary Authority, who shall complete the inquiry and pass appropriate order. Till the completion of the inquiry the suspension order shall remain in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 07.03.2006 Rathour