Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSS/ 1769/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned

counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner is serving as Village Panchayat Development Officer in a Gram Panchayat in District Haridwar. He has been put under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry, vide order dated 10.10.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has

approached this Court.

4. The charge against petitioner is that due to his negligence, sub-standard construction of a road was done in Village Akhora Khurd and when the matter was highlighted by a public man and an enquiry was on, with a view to destroy evidence, petitioner reconstructed the road along with the concerned Junior Engineer. Thus,

interfered with the pending enquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not responsible for any sub-standard work of road, as it

is the job of concerned Junior Engineer.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that suspension is not a punishment in the eyes of law and suspension is ordered with a view to prevent a Government Servant from

interfering with the disciplinary enquiry. He further submits that whether petitioner is innocent, as alleged by him or he is equally responsible with the concerned Junior Engineer, would be seen in the disciplinary enquiry and any interference with the suspension order at this stage would send a wrong signal.

7. This Court finds substance in the said submission made by learned State Counsel. Having regard to the nature and gravity of charge against the petitioner, it cannot be said that suspension order was passed without application of mind. Since suspension is no punishment in the eyes of law and if petitioner is found innocent in the disciplinary enquiry, he will get all benefits and the suspension order would also be revoked. Thus, there is no scope of interference in the matter.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

29.10.2025 Aswal N SI I N T G I R H A A J SWALDU2sFDE.1TiN a5r g ti:4e8 eAtcl:A aaN =Rl30Iu yN=mK fs,eiobag,. A= 1cpn 07NHroe =62DsIdG74t9 ,ab5F lE yCCeBoN : O 0dI 4, TU c8C= n R B921A F6O N- J9I FS0T3B I ' UN 7R1fTG 6,A8 9 HsJ98t =S A3RCI4US BNfWTK60G HF7HA14L RN CS D2KW ,Ho5Eua3LN= 8DH25,I6 GfF98 C0C2OaUD3RA0TC8 OFb4Fd1306C9