1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 243 of 2010(S/S) Prem Kumar ………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Amish Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State and Mr. Manish Dalakoti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D. S. Patni, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, the court finds that the writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is presently working as a Junior Engineer and has been suspended by an order dated 5.4.2010 passed by respondent no.3. A perusal of the suspension order indicates that the petitioner was not found at the spot, where the construction work was going on and that he was disobeying the orders of his superiors. The learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that an Enquiry officer has been appointed. The petitioner has been suspended by invoking the provision of Rule 4 of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. For facility the provision of Rule 4(1) is quoted hereunder.; 2 “4(1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry in contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts under suspension under this Rule: Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this Rule to the next lower authority.” The first proviso of Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates that the suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations are so serious that it would warrant a major penalty in the event the charges are found to be true. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that the charge, which prima facie is shown in the suspension order is that the petitioner was not found at the spot, where the construction work was going on and that he was disobeying the orders of his superiors. These are general allegations and are not so serious, which would warrant imposition of a major penalty. Consequently, the suspension order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Since an Enquiry Officer has been appointed, the court directs the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry and 3 submit a report to the Disciplinary Authority within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Disciplinary Authority will pass appropriate order in accordance with the law. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 13.4.2010 Nishant