This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Village Panchayat Development Officer. The court held suspension is not a punishment and interfered with it was premature pending disciplinary enquiry.
The writ petition is dismissed finding no scope of interference in the suspension order as suspension is not a punishment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:9516
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
2025:UHC:9516
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
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.10.29 06:00:29 -07'00'
2025:UHC:9516
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order against a Panchayat Development Officer can be challenged via writ petition as suspension is not a punishment?
Whether interference is required in suspension orders pending disciplinary enquiry to prevent wrong signals?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Village Panchayat Development Officer)
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Niti Raj Singh Aswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
