Disciplinary proceedings do not automatically extinguish upon the expiry of court-stipulated deadlines. However, authorities are required to seek formal extensions from the court. Passing final orders beyond such deadlines without a timely extension request is procedurally improper and renders the administrative action legally unsustainable.

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, District Institute of Education & Training was appointed as Authorized Controller and subsequently, Mr. Anil Kumar was inducted after the retirement of Mr. J.P.Mishra. The opposite party no. 5 recommended for several transfers of the teaching staff and since the strength had fallen down upto 33 from 58 sanctioned posts, therefore, the petitioner being the Principal came forward and written several letters i.e. on 03-07-2024, 25-07-2024 and 16-08-2024, with the request of indulgence in the matter by the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. In such scenario, the opposite party no. 5 under the state of annoyance, recommended the suspension, under section 16 (G) of the UTTAR PRADESH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT , 1921(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act,1921’). While suspending the petitioner from the post of Principal, the instant reason was shown that one Smt. Rajrani was not reinstated in the service by the petitioner, whereas the fact is stated otherwise, as even after several communications given to Smt. Rajrani, she did not provide the requisite documents for verification.

4. The suspension order passed by the opposite party no. 5, was assailed by the petitioner before this court in Writ A No. 9746 of 2024, wherein this court vide Judgment and Order dated 05-11-2024, quashed the order of suspension dated 04-10-2024, impugned therein and the liberty was given to the competent authority to pass the fresh order.

5. The District Inspector of Schools, in compliance of the order aforesaid, has again issued the suspension order invoking the power under section 16(G) of the ‘Act,1921’ while suspending the petitioner from the post of Principal, which was again challenged by the petitioner befo