IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 151 (S/S) of 2008 Sri Harish Chandra Pandey S/o Late Sri Jaganath Pandey Serving as Supply Inspector (Rail Head) Haldwani, District Nainital. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. District Supply Officer, Nainital. …………..Respondents. Shri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.02.2008, passed by respondent No. 1, placing the petitioner under suspension. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2007, some food grains (70 quintals) were loaded in truck registration No. U.A. 04 9877 to be taken to Okhalkanda for being distributed under public distribution system. However, instead of being transferred to Okhalkanda, the food grains were found being unloaded in New Mandi, Haldwani. It appears that on receiving complaint, departmental authorities went to the spot and seized the goods and registered a criminal case under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the Driver and the Secretary of the Transporters Union. The petitioner is a Civil Supply Inspector. Additional District Magistrate under orders of respondent No. 1 made an enquiry and it is said that there was involvement of the petitioner also (though yet to be proved). Copy of report dated 22.01.2008, of the additional District Magistrate, is annexure-9 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 appears to have passed the impugned order after considering the report submitted by said Inquiry Officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there is no involvement of the petitioner nor is there any evidence to support the allegations made by the respondents. 4. In the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that as mentioned in the report of Additional District Magistrate, the Driver, who was apprehended at the spot when interrogated in jail told that under instructions of the petitioner and one another person, the goods were taken to Nayin Mandi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is copy of the statement of Driver made at the time when he was apprehended in which petitioner is not named by the Driver. It is not clear that who has recorded this statement. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, this writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the suspension order with the observation that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded by the Inquiry Officer as expeditiously as possible, provided the petitioner- Harish Chandra Pandey, co-operates with the Investigating Agency. (Stay application No. 938 of 2008, accordingly stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant. J.) Dt. 19.03.2008 Sweta