IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 199 of 2011 Harpal Singh Yadav . …………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is a head master in a Junior High School. The services of the petitioner were suspended vide order dated 11.9.2009 as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner. Subsequently, when no disciplinary proceedings were initiated even after a long period of time, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 472 of 2010 challenging the suspension order dated 11.9.2009. The suspension order was quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 7.7.2010 on the ground that even after more than nine months, no chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner, though it was left open for the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh in accordance with law. All the same in compliance of the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 472 of 2010 (S/S), the District Education Officer vide its order dated 3rd November, 2010 reinstated the petitioner in service along with the arrears of salary. Though the petitioner was reinstated and is presently teaching at Government Junior High School, 2 Piliparao, Block Bahadarabad, District Haridwar, he is not being given salary for this period. Hence the present writ petition. Since vide order dated 3.11.2010, the petitioner was reinstated, the petitioner is liable to be get the salary upto 3.11.2010. The District Education Officer is hereby directed to release the salary of the petitioner forthwith. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has though further contended that the petitioner is a habitual absentee from the college and even after his reinstatement, there are complaints against him (a fact which has been stated in the counter affidavit as well). Therefore after the District Education Officer, as directed above, releases the salary of the petitioner, the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region is hereby directed to look into the matter regarding making an inquiry of the fact that the petitioner remains absent from the college. In case, these allegations are found to be true, action be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law, which shall include the departmental proceeding against him, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.8.2011 Rathour