Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/549/2024 of VINAY SHARMA Vs SANDEEP SINGH on 17 December 2025
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 549 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel
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.
SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSB No. 549 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Initially, petitioner has challenged his suspension claiming that he is, in fact, a whistleblower and he needs protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014. There are multiple other reliefs that have been claimed by the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that writ has rendered infructuous because after suspension order, inquiry was conducted and the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the dismissal order, WPSB No. 484 of 2025 (‘the second petition’) is still pending in this Court. He submits that petitioner has been dismissed from the service on the ground that he has made false complaint, thereby, tarnished the image of the Institution. He submits that the complaint that was made by the petitioner has never been examined by the respondent-University and in the instant writ petition, prayer no. (e) relates to the direction to the respondent to take appropriate direction on the petitioner’s complaint dated 20.09.2023.
7. The Court wanted to know that if the complaint is a sole basis of dismissal, it could have been challenged in the dismissal order in the second writ petition, which has been filed subsequently.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as suspension is concerned, the writ petition has rendered infructuous, but, he may be given liberty to agitate prayer no. (e) in the second writ petition.
9. Since, the main relief with regard to suspension has already rendered infructuous and the dismissal order has already been challenged by the petitioner in the second petition, the instant writ petition has rendered infructuous, which stands disposed of accordingly.
10. However, insofar as prayer no. (e) in the instant writ petition is concerned, petitioner is always at liberty to incorporate it in the second petition.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.12.2025 Ujjwal