IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 477 of 2008 (S/S) Shri Mohan Chandra Upreti (Supply Inspector) Village-Kujuli P.O. and District Pithoragarh Uttarakhand. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. State Govt. of Uttarakhand through the Secretary Food & Civil Supplies Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Commissioner Food & Rashad Deptt. U.P., Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow. 3. Additional Commissioner Food & Civil Supplies Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. District Supply Officer District Almora. .……….Respondents Shri Gopal Datt Joshi, 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. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the suspension order dated 17.12.1993. A further mandamus has been sought for payment of arrears of revised pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 01.01.1996. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was a Supply Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department. He was placed under suspension in the year 1993 and a charge sheet was given to him on 22 counts. Perusal 2 of the charge sheet (copy annexure-3 to the writ petition), shows that there are serious charges of financial and other irregularities apart from disobedience of the transfer order, embezzlement and negligence in duties. It appears that departmental enquiry was concluded vide order dated 16.09.2003, whereby it was directed that a pecuniary loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs. 4,43,214.22, shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It is further directed that apart from the subsistence allowance, no other payment shall be made for the period of suspension. It is further directed that punishment of stoppage of increments and deprivation of promotion is awarded. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have filed departmental appeal and also filed writ petition No. 424 of 2004 (S/S). Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2004, whereby it is directed that the departmental appeal be decided in accordance with law. Vide order dated 25.06.2007, the appeal was dismissed with the observation that the period of suspension shall be treated to be period of duty only for the purposes of continuation in service. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after considering the seriousness of the charges, which were found proved in the departmental enquiry, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ 3 petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim relief application No. 3669 of 2008, stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 20.06.2008 Sweta