Allahabad High Court
KAILASH PATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The suspension cannot be examined at the writ stage; a departmental inquiry must be initiated and concluded, and the writ petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, a school official, challenged a suspension order dated 14‑08‑2026 issued by the District Basic Education Officer on several allegations, including delayed construction of a handicap toilet, low assessment percentages on the Nipun Plus app, and alleged misuse of mid‑day meal funds. The petitioner argued that the allegations were vague, that he was on sanctioned medical leave during the period of alleged delay, and that the suspension violated Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The respondent contended that the allegations were specific, particularly the claim that only 14 out of 311 students received mid‑day meals. The Court held that the merits of the allegations could not be adjudicated in the writ petition because the petitioner would have an opportunity to defend himself in a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that a departmental inquiry be promptly initiated and concluded within two months of the order’s certification. The petitioner was ordered to cooperate with the inquiry.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order issued on vague allegations violates Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable to quash the suspension pending departmental inquiry
- Whether the specific allegations, such as the mid‑day meal distribution, justify the suspension
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules — s. Rule 4
Subjects
- suspension
- departmental inquiry
- government servant discipline
- Rule 4
- handicapped toilet construction
- mid‑day meal scheme
- vague allegations
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14173 of 2026
Kailash Pati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : K.K. Rao, Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi,
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent-BSA and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension
order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the District Basic Education Officer,
Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension
order dated 14.08.2026 has been challenged on the ground that the
petitioner has been placed under suspension on vague allegations only,
which are as follows:-
"1. वर्ष 2025-26 में स्वीकृत दिव्यांग शौचालय का निर्माण ससमय पूर्ण नहीं कराया गया। संलग्नक पत्रांक /55/2026-27 दिनांक
13.05.2026
2. बार-बार निर्देश देने के बाद भी वर्तमान माह में किसी भी छात्र का निपुण प्लस ऐप पर असेसमेंट नहीं किया गया। माह जुलाई में
केवल 4 प्रतिशत (311 के सापेक्ष 14) छात्रों का ही असेसमेंट किया गया।
3. एम.डी.एम. गुणवत्तापूर्ण न बनाया जाना।
4. एम.डी.एम. मे वास्तविक लाभान्वित छात्रों की संख्या न दर्शाकर संख्या को बढ़ाकर एम. डी. एम. पंजिका में अंकित कर शासकीय
धन का दुरुपयोग करना।
5. कम्पोजिट ग्रांट का सदुपयोग न करना।
6. विद्यालय में समय से उपस्थित न होना।"
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a delay
in getting the construction work of toilets (for the handicapped) done as
the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave for the period from
WRIA No. 14173 of 2026
2
18.01.2026 to 14.02.2026. The aforesaid fact has not been considered
while placing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that the
allegations are not such as to warrant a major penalty, hence the
suspension is in violation of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that
the allegations are specific, wherein allegation No. 2 states that mid-day
meal was distributed to only 14 students as against 311 students, which
itself is quite specific.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the charges so levelled
against the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the
explanation and documents relied upon by the petitioner can be a defence
in the departmental inquiry, as during departmental inquiry, the petitioner
will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction
that the departmental inquiry be initiated against the petitioner and
brought to its logical end, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest
possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order before the disciplinary
authority. The petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 9, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…