WPSB/432/2026 of RAJIV NAYAN NAUTIYAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 July 2026

1. The petitioner holds the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest, Kalsi.

2. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2026, he has been placed under suspension on the ground that at the time of seeking regularization of his service, he furnished a Certificate, wherein he failed to disclose about the pendency of a criminal case (Crime No. 350 of 2024 under Sections 323, 498, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) and, secondly, on the ground that he remained absent in a meeting of the officials held under the chairmanship of the Forest Minister of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order is illegal, inasmuch as the charges leveled against the petitioner are not such as would result in any major penalty. He further submits that the suspension order also does not record any such finding, which is sine qua non for placing a government servant under suspension. He also tried to contend that the order has been passed on mala fide consideration and that the charges leveled against the petitioner are false and incorrect.

4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has placed on record the instructions received from the Department, in which an attempt has been made to support the charges leveled against the petitioner. However, he fairly concedes that in the impugned suspension order, no finding has been recorded to the effect that the charges are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted, as is the requirement under Section 4(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, which reads as follows:- “4. Suspension-[(1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. It will be clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted:”

5. Therefore, on this short ground alone, we quash the impugned suspension order without going into other submissions, leaving it open to the Department to pass fresh order, if so advised. In the event any fresh order is passed placing the petitioner under suspension, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same on all possible grounds.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 10th July, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb109 7d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E 010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.07.10 16:52:28 +05'30'