Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Abdul Moin, J.
Dr. Gyanvati Dixit – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sec. Edu. Lko. And Others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 11061 of 2024
Decided On : 27-11-2024
(A) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16G(5) - Suspension of employee - Petitioner challenged suspension order without reinstatement post quashing of earlier order - Court held that employer-employee relationship continues during suspension, and reinstatement is not a prerequisite for issuing a fresh suspension order. (Paras 6, 18, 30)
(B) Judicial Precedents - The court discussed various judgments regarding reinstatement and suspension, emphasizing that failure to issue a formal reinstatement order does not invalidate a subsequent suspension if no prejudice is shown. (Paras 20, 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 09.11.2024, arguing it was issued without reinstatement following the quashing of a prior suspension order. The court noted that the employer-employee relationship remains during suspension.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suspension order was valid under Section 16G(5) of the Act, 1921, and that the lack of a formal reinstatement order did not affect the validity of the new suspension.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be suspended without reinstatement and the applicability of Section 16G(5) of the Act, 1921.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer-employee relationship does not end during suspension, and reinstatement is not necessary for a new suspension order to be valid. The court also noted that no prejudice was shown by the petitioner due to the lack of a formal reinstatement order.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Affidavit of compliance filed by Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.
3. Under challenge is the order dated 09.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
4. Raising a challenge to the said order, the contention is that earlier the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 04.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition.
5. A challenge had been raised to the said suspension order by filing Writ A No.9746 of 2024 In Re Dr Gyanvati Dixit vs State of U.P. & Ors. This Court vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, quashed the said suspension order. It was further directed that consequences would follow. Further, it was left open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without reinstating the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 05.11.2024, the petitioner again has been placed under suspension which could not have been done by the respondents inasmuch as once the petitioner had been placed under suspension vide the earlier order dated 04.11.2024, employer-employee relationship stood suspended and without the said relationship being restored by passing of a consequential order in terms of the order of this Court dated 05.11.2024, the petitioner could not again have been placed under suspension.
7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director of ECIL vs B. Karunakar : 1993 (4) SCC 727 (Para 31), a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.305 of 2007 In Re Lal Bahadur Singh vs U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation & Ors, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Anand Narain Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh : (1980) 1 SCC 252 as well as a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Salma Bi vs Collector, Buldana & Ors : 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 273.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that perusal of the impugned suspension order would indicate that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in view of the provisions of Section 16G(5)(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921'). However, the aforesaid provision will only be attracted and applicable in case his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him, but no enquiry was initiated at the time of passing the suspension order and thus, the suspension order reflects patent non application of mind.
9. No other ground has been urged.
10. Responding to the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 argues that once this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 had quashed the suspension order dated 04.10.2024 as such the reinstatement followed automatically and there was no requirement to pass a separate order for the same. This would be apparent from the fact that while passing the impugned suspension order dated 09.11.2024, the petitioner has been addressed as the Principal of the Institution as specifically finds place in the order.
11. Responding to the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, argument of learned counsel for respondent No.5 is that a perusal of the impugned suspension order would indicate that same has been passed under the provisions of Sections 16G(5)(a) and 16G(5)(b) and even if the argument raised by the petitioner with regard to Section 16G(5)(b) is upheld yet the suspension order can still be sustained con
The court affirmed that an employee's suspension can be validly issued without formal reinstatement following a prior suspension, provided the employer-employee relationship continues.
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
The court affirmed that a suspension order can be validly extended and that an employee may waive rights to challenge such orders pending disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the suspension of a teacher for misconduct, emphasizing the need for discipline in educational institutions.
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so ma....
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
The court held that under Section 8(4) of the DSE Act, a suspension order lapses if not approved by the Directorate of Education within 15 days, thus mandating procedural protections for educational ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
