IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 123 of 2011 (S/B) Ganesh Lal ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………. Respondents Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) On 12th May, 2011, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State visited the office where the petitioner is working. After the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the District Magistrate wrote a letter on 20th May, 2011 to the Secretary Gram Vikas Vibhag stating that the petitioner is a State cadre employee and that he can be suspended by the State Government and not by him. It was insinuated in the said letter that the Hon’ble Chief Minister purportedly desired that the petitioner be suspended. Soon thereafter, the District Magistrate proceeded on the basis that the post held by the petitioner has become vacant and, accordingly, passed an order on 30th May, 2011, directing another person to discharge the duties attached to the post held by the petitioner. This resulted in filing the writ petition. 2. This writ petition was considered on 8th June, 2011 when this Court directed the learned Chief Standing Counsel to ascertain whether the petitioner has, in fact, been suspended in order to enable the District Magistrate to pass the order dated 30th May, 2011. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has produced before us an order dated 7th June, 2011, whereby the petitioner has been suspended. In that, the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 12th May, 2011 has been referred and the letter of the District Magistrate dated 20th May, 2011 has also been referred. The order dated 7th June, 2011 does not give any reason for suspending the petitioner. The law made by the State Government governing suspension requires furnishing of reasons compelling the 2 Government to suspend. In those circumstances, the order of suspension dated 7th June, 2011 is of no consequence, as the same is not in accordance with law. The same is, accordingly, quashed. Inasmuch as, prior to 30th May, 2011, admittedly, petitioner was not suspended, the order of the District Magistrate dated 30th May, 2011 impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable, the same is also quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 3. The above order will not stand in the way of the State Government to take such legal actions as it may be advised against the petitioner, in the event, the State Government is of the view that the actions of the petitioner are such that such actions are required to be taken. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 14.06.2011 14.06.2011 Aswal