Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Dr. Gyanvati Dixit - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education Lko. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 1059 of 2025
Decided On : 11-04-2025
(A) Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Sections 16-G(5), 16-G(7), and Regulation 39 - Suspension of Principal - The petitioner challenged the approval of her suspension order, arguing that it was passed without proper application of mind and without affording her an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the District Inspector of Schools failed to consider necessary documents and did not provide reasons for the approval, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 16, 20, 41, 42)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the suspended employee before approving a suspension order, especially when the employee has submitted a representation against the suspension. (Paras 12, 20, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Principal, was suspended under Section 16-G of the Act, 1921, and her suspension was approved without a charge sheet being presented to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner argued that the approval was illegal as it did not follow due process.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the approval of the suspension order, stating that the District Inspector of Schools did not apply his mind to the facts and failed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Issues: The main issues were whether the approval of the suspension order was valid without a charge sheet and whether the petitioner was afforded a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approval of the suspension order was invalid due to the lack of necessary documentation and failure to provide a hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, assisted by Sri Shreshth Srivastava and Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State- opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20/12/2024 bearing reference no.6240-46/2024-25 2025, passed by respondent no. 4. A copy of which is contained in ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the Principal of Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur and to pay her salary regularly notwithstanding the order dated 20.12.2024 by which the earlier suspension order dated 9.11.2024, has been confirmed.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in LRNS Inter College, Naimisharan on 23.01.1993. Thereafter, she was appointed on the post of Principal at the Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur pursuant on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission on 22.08.2011.
4. The order of single operation dated 04.01.2019 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur on account of two rival groups competing for the Committee of Management of the Institution in question, therefore, authorized controller was appointed.
5. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner raised a voice against the repeated transfers of various employees/teachers of the Institution, by respondent no.5 under the approval of respondent no.4 resulting 33 posts fallen vacant and also against her harassment, which gave a cause to the respondent no.5 and respondent no.4 to take coercive action against her.
6. Opposite party no.5 has initially issued a suspension order on 04.10.2024 against the petitioner under Section 16(G) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1921”) by which the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Principal, Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur, prima-facie, on the ground of failure on part of the petitioner to comply the directions of this Court for reinstating one Smt. Rajrani into service.
7. The above-mentioned suspension order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ-A No.9746 of 2024, in re: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. & Others, which was decided vide order dated 05.11.2024. This Court was pleased to quash the above-mentioned suspension order, with a direction that consequences to follow under law. This Court has given liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law (Annexure No.9).
8. The order dated 05.11.2024 was uploaded on 06.11.2024 and the same was served upon opposite party no.5 but opposite party no.5 without reinstating the petitioner has again issued a suspension order against the petitioner under Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 on 09.11.2024. Petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 09.11.2024 before this Court by filing Writ-A No.11061 of 2024 (Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others), which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2024 but without expressing any opinion on the ground urged by the petitioner, so far it relates to the violation of Section-16-G (5)(a) of the Act, 1921.
9. The petitioner met opposite party no.2 on 12.11.2024 apprising him about her victimization at the behest of opposite party no.5.
10. During the pendency of the subsequent writ petition, counsel representing opposite party no.5, through the short counter-affidavit, has brought on record one letter un
The approval of a suspension order without a charge sheet and without affording the employee an opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice.
The District Inspector of Schools must evaluate charges on a prima facie basis without delving into their validity; procedural adherence is critical in suspension cases under the U.P. Intermediate Ed....
The District Inspector of Schools must provide an opportunity for hearing before approving or disapproving a teacher's suspension order, as mandated by Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education....
The court reaffirmed that a decision cannot be rendered by one authority without providing a hearing to those involved, violating natural justice principles.
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 court affirmed that an employee's suspension can be validly issued without formal reinstatement following a prior suspension, provided the employer-employee relationship continues.
The refusal to hand over charge of Officiating Principal was arbitrary and constituted legal malice, as the petitioner was exonerated of previous charges.
Only authorized authority can exercise disciplinary powers; any order by an unauthorized entity is invalid.
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
