WPSB 129/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is satisfied from a perusal of the suspension order that the charges levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, appear to be serious in nature. This Court, accordingly, is not inclined to interfere in the suspension order at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in Mahendra Kumar Tayal vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (1) U.D., 32, the Court held that an employee can only be suspended when the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to place him under suspension in order to maintain the discipline in service and keep up the morale of the honest and dutiful employees, etc. In the opinion of the Court, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally distinguishable. This Court has already held that the charges levelled against the petitioner appear to be serious which warrants suspension at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 09-06-2011 SP