Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard Sri Parijaat Belaura, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel, Sri Prashat Arora, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 as well as Sri M.M. Asthana, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 06.05.2015 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Amethi by which petitioner has been placed under suspension.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the impugned order submits that it is totally incorrect on the part of District Basic Education Officer, Amethi that while he was posted in the institution in which petitioner is working as Headmaster he was sleeping rather the said authority has never inspected in the institution on 05.05.2015, as such, the said basis of passing the impugned order is incorrect, on the said ground the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension.

4. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner are that the impugned order is mala fide exercise of power on the part of respondent No. 2 as he is personally prejudiced/biased against him, so liable to be set aside.

5.