Allahabad High Court
RAJEEV KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that the suspension order cannot be examined at the writ stage and disposed of the petition, directing the departmental inquiry to be completed within two months.
Summary
The petitioner, a headmaster in Meerut, challenged a suspension order dated 28 July 2026 issued by the District Basic Education Officer after an incident at his school that led to a gathering of guardians and an enquiry report alleging negligence. He contended that he had left the school prior to the incident, having delegated responsibility to an assistant teacher, and argued that the allegations did not merit suspension under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The respondents submitted that a charge sheet had been filed and the departmental inquiry should proceed within the time frame prescribed by the court. The High Court held that the merits of the charges could not be examined at the writ stage because the petitioner would have an opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the inquiry be concluded within two months and allowing the petitioner to seek attachment to a nearby institution. The court also instructed the petitioner to cooperate with the inquiry.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order issued by the District Basic Education Officer is maintainable pending the conclusion of a departmental inquiry.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the alleged negligence when he had delegated duties to an assistant teacher before the incident.
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed and the departmental inquiry allowed to proceed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be attached to another nearby institution during the inquiry.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 — s. Rule 4
Subjects
- suspension
- departmental inquiry
- government servant discipline
- Uttar Pradesh
- headmaster
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14217 of 2026
Rajeev Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmi Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devesh Vikram
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Instruction has been produced today on behalf of respondent-BSA, which
is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of
Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
suspension order dated 28.07.2026, passed by Respondent No. 3 (District
Basic Education Officer, Meerut), whereby the petitioner was placed
under suspension from the post of Headmaster.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Headmaster
at Prathamik Vidyalaya Bahadurpur No. 1, Sarurpur, District Meerut, and
has always performed his duties with utmost sincerity. The present
dispute arises out of an incident on 25.07.2026, which led to a gathering
of guardians outside the school gate on 27.07.2026, raising an alarm.
Consequently, an inspection was conducted during which the following
facts came to light:-
"1. ग्रामवासियों द्वारा बताया गया कि विद्यालय की छु ट्टी के समय अधिकांश शिक्षक विद्यार्थियों के बाहर
निकलने से पूर्व ही विद्यालय से प्रस्थान कर जाते हैं तथा कक्षों में ताला लगाने का कार्य विद्यार्थियों से कराया
जाता है, जबकि यह उत्तरदायित्व पूर्णतः विद्यालय स्टाफ का है।
2. विद्यालय के कक्षों में प्रायः विद्युत पंखे चलते हुए छोड़ दिए जाते हैं, जिससे विद्यालय प्रबंधन में लापरवाही
परिलक्षित होती है।
WRIA No. 14217 of 2026
2
3. ग्रामवासियों द्वारा यह भी शिकायत की गई कि कुछ अध्यापिकाएँ विद्यालय अवधि में मोबाइल फोन के
अत्यधिक उपयोग में व्यस्त रहती हैं, जिससे शिक्षण कार्य प्रभावित होता है।
4. घटना के समय कक्षा 5 में श्री उमेश कुमार, सहायक अध्यापक अध्यापन कार्य कर रहे थे। उनसे तथा कथा-
5 के तीन विद्यार्थियों से पूछताछ की गई। विद्यार्थियों ने बताया कि कक्ष बंद करने से पूर्व अंदर देखा गया था,
परंतु संबधि
ं त छात्रा संभवतः किसी कोने में बैठी अथवा छिपी होने के कारण दिखाई नहीं दी। छात्रा सामान्य से
कमजोर एवं संकोची प्रवृत्ति की प्रतीत हुई।
5. जांच में यह तथ्य भी संज्ञान में आया कि घटना वाले दिन श्री राजीव कुमार, प्रधानाध्यापक विद्यालय समय
समाप्त होने में लगभग 10-15 मिनट पूर्व किसी आवश्यक कार्य से चले गए तथा विद्यालय की जिम्मेदारी
मौखिक रूप से श्री उमेश कुमार, सहायक अध्यापक को सौंप दी। इस संबंध में कोई लिखित कार्यभार
हस्तांतरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया।
6. विद्यालय में कुल 05 शिक्षक एवं 01 शिक्षामित्र कार्यरत हैं, जिनमें थी राजीव कुमार (प्रधानाध्यापक), श्री
उमेश कुमार (सहायक अध्यापक), श्रीमती अरुणा रानी (सहायक अध्यापिका), श्रीमती अनीता (सहायक
अध्यापिका), श्रीमती शालिनी त्यागी (सहायक अध्यापिका) तथा श्री बालेश (शिक्षामित्र) सम्मिलित हैं। "
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of the
alleged incident, i.e., 25.07.2026, petitioner had already left the school for
some important work after giving charge to one Mr. Umesh Kumar,
Assistant Teacher. Therefore, petitioner is not responsible for the incident
referred to in Point No. 5 of the aforesaid enquiry report. He next submits
that the petitioner has always been careful and sincere in performing his
duties. He also submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner is not
of such a nature as would warrant imposition of any major penalty
contemplated under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He further submits that petitioner
has been attached to an institution, which is around 50 to 60 kilometres,
therefore, during the course of enquiry, he may be attached to some
nearby institution. He lastly submits that under such and circumstances,
impugned suspension order is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set
aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, as per the instruction
received by him, submits that charge sheet has already been submitted on
17.08.2026 and the enquiry shall be concluded within a period as directed
by this Court.
WRIA No. 14217 of 2026
3
7. 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.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction that the departmental inquiry so initiated against the petitioner,
be 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.
9. In view of the request made by the petitioner for being attached to
some nearby institution, it shall be open to the respondent authorities to
consider and take appropriate decision in the matter.
10. Needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate in the aforesaid
inquiry.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 9, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…