Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 155043
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
SANJEEV MEHRATRA – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS/ 398/ 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anup Kumar Verma
For the Respondents: Narayan Dutt, Yogesh Kumar Pacholia
Suspension is not a punishment; therefore, a Controlling Authority is competent to pass a suspension order. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government servant before retirement can legally continue after their retirement.
Headnote:The petitioner, serving as an Executive Officer, challenged a suspension order on the grounds that it was issued by the Director rather than the Secretary, who was claimed to be the Appointing Authority. The court found that the Rules designate the Director as the Appointing Authority and noted that the petitioner had since retired from service, rendering the challenge to the suspension order moot. The court addressed whether only the Appointing Authority possesses the power to suspend an employee, observing that "Suspension is no punishment in the eyes of law, therefore, order of suspension can also be passed by Controlling Authority." It further noted that disciplinary enquiries initiated prior to retirement may legally continue post-retirement. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Disciplinary Enquiry, if pending, be concluded within nine months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of suspension order issued by the designated appointing authority under service rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. suspension is not a punishment and can be ordered by a controlling authority; it terminates upon retirement. (Para 7) |
| 3. continuity of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement and the requirement for employee cooperation. (Para 8 , 9) |
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings
SL. No. Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures
1. Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
4. Petitioner was serving as Executive Officer in Nagar Panchayat, Dwarahat, District Almora at the time of his suspension, vide order dated 21.01.2023. Challenging his suspension, petitioner filed this writ petition. The challenge to the suspension order is mainly on the ground that it is passed by Director and not the Secretary, who is the Appointing Authority.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5, however, submits that Appointing Authority of the petitioner is Director, as he is a member of Centralised Service, who are appointed by Director, Urban Development.
6. The first ground of challenge is without any substance, as the Rules also provide that Director is the Appointing Authority.
7. Even otherwise also, there is no law which provides that only the Appointing Authority can pass an order of suspension. Suspension is no punishment in the eyes of law, therefore, order of suspension can also be passed by Controlling Authority. Since reportedly petitioner has retired from service from Nagar Palika Parishad, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 30.06.2025, therefore, life of suspension order has come to an end. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending.
8. Law is well settled that Disciplinary Enquiry, if initiated, against a Government Servant before his retirement may continue post retirement also, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the Disciplinary Enquiry, if pending, may be concluded as early as possible, within nine months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
9. Petitioner is directed to extend full cooperation and in case, petitioner does not appear before Enquiry Officer for three consecutive dates, then the Enquiry Officer will be at liberty to proceed ex-parte and submit a report.
