IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SS) No. 568 of 2025 Shiv Kumar Saini. ………………… Petitioner.

Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……………Respondents.

Present:

Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner, who was inducted in service as an Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution in 2009, is aggrieved by the office memo. dated 05.11.2024 issued by District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Chamoli whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service. Before dismissing the petitioner from service, petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.09.2024 on the charge that at the time of induction in service he submitted the mark-sheet of intermediate and on comparing the same with the gazette notification, there is difference in the marks.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that after placing petitioner under suspension, no charge-sheet was ever been given to the petitioner and not only this, even no Inquiry officer was appointed and only by way of a show cause notice, petitioner has been dismissed from the service by the order impugned. It is further contended that not only this, even while issuing the show cause notice not a single material was supplied to the petitioner like copy of the gazette notification as well as other material on the basis of which petitioner was placed under suspension. It is further submitted that since no material was supplied to the petitioner while asking explanation pursuant to the show cause notice there was no occasion for him to submit his response.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that not only this, entire action has been taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation. In PIL, in which only general direction were issued to verify the credentials of the teachers appointed in different institutions but in that PIL there was no reference of any particular teacher, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the action is taken by the respondents pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench in the PIL, then respondents were under the legal obligation to deal with case of each individual separately and independently but herein in this case, case of the petitioner was not dealt with by the respondents independently and in a very cursory manner without issuing charge sheet and without holding full-fledged disciplinary proceedings petitioner is dismissed from service.

4. Apart from this, learned counsel submits that after placing the petitioner under suspension by order dated 11.09.2024, he has not given any subsistence allowance, which itself vitiates entire disciplinary proceeding.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to this has placed reliance upon certain provisions of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2003). First of all, she has given reference of Rule 4 (9) which reads as under:

“4 (9) A Government Servant placed under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension under this rule shall be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule-53 of the Financial Hand Book, Volume-II, Part II to IV.”

6. By giving reference of Rule 4 (9) of the aforesaid Rules, 2003, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after suspension, petitioner was entitled to get subsistence allowance in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 53 of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II part II to IV but herein this case no subsistence allowance was paid.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non payment of subsistence allowance vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings, therefore, she submits that on this account alone