IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 134 (S/B) OF 2009 Ramesh Lal ……Petitioner Versus State Public Service tribunal Uttarakhand, …..Respondents Dehradun & others Shri D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.P. Uadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 30th December, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,, C.J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, it was contended that the suspension order is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the same has not been passed either on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and kept in custody for a period in excess of 48 hours or that a criminal charge against the petitioner is pending investigation before any court or that there is a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner. It was contended that the respondents purported to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, but instead of initiating a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge sheet, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Being, prima facie, satisfied that in such circumstances there was no contemplation of disciplinary proceeding, the order of suspension was stayed. The present application for vacating the said interim order was filed sometimes in 2009 alongwith a copy of the counter affidavit intended to be filed to contest the writ petition. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated that a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. That being the case,we confirm the interim order and at the same time dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the interim order as well as confirmation thereof will stand vacated in the event within three months from today a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) ML