Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH
Gyanvati Dixit – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shreshth Srivastava and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Apoorva Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Brijendra Singh and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23-06-2025, whereby the District Inspector of Schools has approved the recommendation of the suspension of the petitioner made by the Committee of Management concerned.
3.Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer(Hindi) in L.R.N.S. Inter College, Naimisharan, on 23-01-1993 and thereafter, on 22-08-2011, she was appointed as Principal at Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur, in furtherance to the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, whereafter on 04-01-2019, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order for single hand operation in the college because of claim of rival groups of Committee of Management and Mr. J.P. Mishra, Principal, Distri
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for leave to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was filed in a sheer illegal, arbitrary, ....
Time frames set by courts for inquiries are procedural; failure to meet them does not invalidate proceedings unless specific consequences are stated.
Court-fixed timeline for disciplinary proceedings revokes suspension on expiry but permits continuation; punishment vitiated if show-cause reply ignored – Remit for fresh order on technical grounds.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
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 extension of suspension orders must be passed within 90 days of the suspension, as directed by Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
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
