Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/454/2026 of DR UMANG RAWAT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 23 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No.454 of 2026 23rd July, 2026 Dr. Umang Rawat -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another ----Respondents
UKHC010125212026
2026:UHC:6243-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.454 of 2026
23rd July, 2026
Dr. Umang Rawat
-----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tushar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, who held the post of Radiologist in Sub-District Hospital, Karnprayag, was issued a show- cause notice dated 11.04.2026 stating that he had remained absent from duties since long time and which amounts to misconduct. The notice also states that the petitioner has not completed five years of service, in terms of the bond furnished by him and, therefore, he should show cause as to why the State may not recover amount equivalent to salary and allowances for the shortfall in the bond period of service of five years.
3. It is further stated that, in view of the unauthorized absence, why he should not be presumed to
UKHC010125212026
2026:UHC:6243-DB have resigned and disciplinary action taken against him accordingly.
4. The petitioner is stated to have submitted an explanation on 28.04.2026 in reply to the said show-cause notice.
5. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take decision on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice.
6. Learned State Counsel very fairly does not oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2026 submitted in response to show-cause notice dated 11.04.2026 and pass a speaking order within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with photostat copy of the explanation dated 28.04.2026.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 SS