Allahabad High Court

BALIRAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 19 January 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The court declined to interfere with the suspension order, holding that the matter is for the disciplinary authority and not fit for interference under Article 226.

Summary

The petitioner, a Block Education Officer, was transferred multiple times and later suspended following show‑cause notices alleging illegal gratification and improper deductions from a composite grant. The petitioner challenged the suspension, claiming no misconduct and that the allegations were unfounded and motivated by animosity. The respondents argued that serious charges, supported by a fact‑finding inquiry report, justified the suspension under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The High Court noted that the allegations were serious and that the matter fell within the domain of a departmental inquiry, not suitable for judicial interference under Article 226. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the suspension order, directed the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry within three months, and ordered the petitioner to receive subsistence allowances during the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can set aside the suspension order of a government servant under Article 226 when serious allegations and a departmental inquiry are pending.
Whether the differences between the allegations in the show‑cause notice and those in the suspension order affect the scope of judicial review.
Whether the suspension order complies with the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Subjects

suspension
departmental inquiry
show cause notice
illegal gratification
Article 226
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
administrative law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 111 of 2026

Baliram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu
Singh (A/H 0277/2019) holding brief of Sri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, who
appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do
not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties,
writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was directly recruited and posted
on the post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools in the year 2006. The same
stood re-designated as Block Education Officer. It is also the case of the writ
petitioner that he has been transferred from one place to another and since
February 2022, the writ petitioner was posted in District Mau. While the writ
petitioner was posted as Block Education Officer, Development Block
Badraon vide order 04.04.2025, he was transferred and posted at
Development Block Pardaha, the writ petitioner on 04.04.2025 joined at
Development Block Pardaha and shortly after such posting, the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari issued a show cause notice dated 28.04.2025 requiring
the writ petitioner to submit reply with regard to certain allegations. The writ
petitioner tendered his reply on 01.05.2025. Thereafter again the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari issued another notice dated 06.05.2025 show causing the
writ petitioner to submit reply to which the writ petitioner tender the reply
on 13.05.2025. Thereafter an order came to be passed on 10.06.2025 by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari transferring the writ petitioner from
Development Block Pardaha to Development Block Dohrighat. Pursuant to
WRIA No. 111 of 2026
2

the said transfer order, the writ petitioner joined Development Block
Dohrighat and started discharging the duties. Thereafter while the writ
petitioner was working, an order was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Mau on 04.09.2025 attaching the writ petitioner to the Headquarters with
further direction for assumption of charge of Development Block Dohrighat
by one Mukesh Kumar as additional charge. The writ petitioner questioning
the said order while filing Writ-A No. 14196 of 2025 (Baliram v. State of
U.P. and others) which came to be disposed of on 19.09.2025 requiring the
respondents to decide the claim of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
preferred a representation on 29.09.2025 and thereafter Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 7274 of 2025 in which notices were issued on
15.12.2025 and thereafter on 18.12.2025, the writ petitioner had been placed
under suspension and contemplation of the inquiry by the Additional
Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Prayagraj.

4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ
petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the
impugned order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the writ
petitioner has not committed misconduct so as to give a handle to the
respondents to place the writ petitioner under suspension. Submission is that
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari bore animosity against the writ petitioner,
particularly, when the writ petitioner had preferred Writ-A No. 14196 of
2025 (Baliram v. State of U.P. and others) which came to be disposed of on
19.09.2025 and since the order of the writ court was not complied so the writ
petitioner preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7274 of 2025 in which
notices were issued which became the basis for suspension of the writ
petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner further submits
that the writ petitioner has not been misappropriated and committed
irregularity so as to alleged in the order impugned. He submits that there had
been illegal deductions made to the composite grant to the 10% and under
different headings to 40% is misconceived. Submission is that the writ
petitioner had at no point of time even indulged into illegal gratification and
extortion. However, the entire state machinery is against the writ petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that even
the show cause notice so issued to the writ petitioner on 28.04.2025
containing the same allegations to which the writ petitioner had given a
reply. He further submits that the writ petitioner has not been committed any
WRIA No. 111 of 2026
3

misconduct and he is not shy to face the departmental proceedings but the
suspension be revoked.

6. Sri R.S Umrao, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that
there are serious and grave charges leveled against the writ petitioner which
became the basis for suspending the petitioner. He further submits that the
petitioner indulged in illegal gratification and extortion of money and further
unnecessary deduction had been made in composite grant in order to deny
the benefits to the actual beneficiaries. According to him, allegations
contained in the show cause notice dated 28.04.2025 are different and so far
as the allegations which are made the basis for suspension is concerned and
a fact finding inquiry stood conducted and the report was submitted by the
District Magistrate, Mau to the Director General, School Education on
06.10.2025. He submits that there happens to be complainants alleging
misconduct of the Commission.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records
carefully.

8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner's services is
governed under the provisions contained under U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is also not in dispute that he has been
placed under suspension by the authority subordinate to the appointing/
disciplinary authority. Prima facie, the Court finds that there are serious
allegations which were made the basis for suspending the petitioner. This
Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to
delve into the factual aspects while conducting a roving and fishing inquiry
as the same is subject matter of departmental inquiry. The allegations so
sought to be leveled against the petitioner are for demanding illegal
gratification and also reduction in the composite grant 10% and other under
being 40%.

9. The instructions so produced today under the signatures of Additional
Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Prayagraj dated 13.01.2026 annexes the
fact finding inquiry report dated 06.10.2025 and individual complaint
against the petitioner. It is not a case that the suspension order has been
passed without any basis.

10. Nonetheless, the allegations made in the show cause notice dated
28.04.2025 contained different allegations vis-a-vis the allegations which are
WRIA No. 111 of 2026
4

being levelled in the suspension order. Thus, this Court does not find the
present case to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:

(a) The interference with the suspension order dated 18.12.2025 passed by
the Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Prayagraj is declined.

12. Leaving it open for the disciplinary authority to conclude the
departmental proceedings within a period of three months from the date of
presentation of the certified copy of the order.

13. The writ petitioner shall participate in the proceedings and shall be made
admissible to the subsistence allowances as per the rules.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

15. Instructions filed today are taken on record as marked as appendix A &
B.

January 20, 2026
A. Prajapati
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…