RAVI(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/7122/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010274692026

Filing Number

CWP/23911/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/7122/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Vinay Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.The Engineer In-Chief,(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Superintending Engineer(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Executive Engineer(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Ravi's petition challenging his suspension order dated 27.04.2026, holding that suspension is not punishment and falls within Rule 10 of CCS/CCA Rules, which permits suspension during contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that he bore no responsibility for outsourced employee salary delays and that no show cause notice was issued, finding these merits cannot be examined at the suspension stage and must be addressed through appeal under Rule 23(i) of the CCS/CCA Rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/7122/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Ravi's petition challenging his suspension order dated 27.04.2026, holding that suspension is not punishment and falls within Rule 10 of CCS/CCA Rules, which permits suspension during contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that he bore no responsibility for outsourced employee salary delays and that no show cause notice was issued, finding these merits cannot be examined at the suspension stage and must be addressed through appeal under Rule 23(i) of the CCS/CCA Rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case