JUDGMENT

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. - Heard Sri Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Office Memorandum dated 14.01.2020 passed by the first-respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, for financial irregularities, without causing an inquiry, and without any reason and involvement of the petitioner; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry regarding the alleged financial irregularities within two months or prior to his superannuation due on 31.03.2020; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue to work in the post of Executive Engineer In-charge, PWD, Uttarkashi where he had been working prior to his suspension.

3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, while the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer In-Charge, in the Public Works Department in the Uttarkashi Division, he was placed under suspension by the first-respondent on charges of financial irregularities in the tender process, and in the award of contract with respect to the construction of the Dunda-Devidhar to Khattukhal motor road. The petitioner has, in the writ affidavit, given his version of the events, which took place, in justification of his claim that the allegations levelled against him, for placing him under suspension, are arbitrary and illegal.

4. It is appropriate, in this context, to take note of the reasons assigned in the impugned order for placing the petitioner under suspension. The impugned order dated 14.01.2020 refers to an inquiry caused by the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi on the issue of floating of tenders, and the tender process involved in allotting the subject work to the successful tenderers. It then records that, after opening of the technical bid, relaxation was granted to the bidders in Condition No. 2.5; if relaxation had been given prior to issuance of the tender, total transparency would have been followed; a level playing field would also have been provided thereby; participation of a maximum number of bidders would also have been insured; this had resulted in violation of Rule 20 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017 in maintaining transparency, competitiveness, impartiality and to prevent arbitrariness in the procurement process; the tender document required technical staff to be appointed including an Environmental Engineer with the required qualification in Environmental Science / Engineering; on verification, it came to light that none of the tender participants had fulfilled Condition No. 2.6 of the tender; the District Magistrate had, by his letter dated 24.12.2019, directed the Superintending Engineer to cancel the departmental tender process; the Additional District Magistrate had, by his letter dated 29.11.2019, directed the Superintending Engineer to produce all files pertaining to the tender process in original, and not to take any further steps till the completion of inquiry; despite these directions, officers of the Public Works Department, Uttarkashi did not make available the original tender records; the SDM, Dunda had informed, by his letter dated 26.12.2019, that he had inspected the DundaDevidhar-Khattukhal motor-road; during inspection, he found that the motor-road had been cut for about 70 to 80 meters; the cutting work of the motor-road was stopped until further orders; the Executive Engineer had, by his letter dated 26.12.2019, sought permission to make a dumping yard to dispose of the excavation garbage; the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi had directed the Superintending Engineer to take necessary action to cancel the tender process prio