The court affirmed that suspension pending inquiry is a valid administrative measure, provided there is prima facie evidence of misconduct & that natural justice principles must be observed during disciplinary procedures.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare and set aside the impugned suspension order vide reference No.HPS/HR/25-26/46 dated 04.08.2025, issued by respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Rahul Kandharkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) in the respondent School on 12.06.1995, and his services were confirmed on 12.06.1998. Thereafter, in addition to the said post, the petitioner was associated with the National Cadre Corps (NCC) since 2006 as a Care Taker, and was subsequently, promoted to the rank of Chief Officer in the year 2024, by the Director General of NCC, New Delhi. As such, the petitioner has an unblemished service record of more than three decades. However, despite the same, he was issued with a show-cause notice dated 23.07.2025, calling for his explanation as to why action shall not be taken against him, in pursuance of the complaint supposedly made against the petitioner by the students of 8E, 8G and 8H, alleging his teaching inability and inappropriate behavior in the classroom. However, in response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 25.07.2025, denying the allegations, and specifically seeking the copies of the complaint, the relevant Rules of the respondent School governing the disciplinary enquiries. However, none of the said documents were furnished to the petitioner, thereby, depriving him of a valuable opportunity to defend himself. It was further submitted that despite the petitioner’s categorical explanation, respondent No.2 has passed the present suspension order vide impugned letter dated 04.08.2025, stating that the petitioner’s explanation was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and observed that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules for Employees of HPS, 2002 (for short, ‘the HPS Rules’).

4. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the entire exercise of illegally placing the petitioner under suspension was carried out in a completely biased and hasty manner, even without furnishing him the copies of the compliant and other relevant documents or affording him a fair opportunity to substantiate his case, thereby, violating every possible fundamental right available to the petitioner, in gross violation of Rule 6 of the HPS Rules, which mandates application of mind and strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that even if the alleged complaints were to be accepted as it is on the face of record, it would not disclose any act of grave misconduct, warranting the harsh punishment of suspension. As such, the impugned order is capricious, violative of principles of natural justice, and suffers from proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned suspension order dated 04.08.2025 is liable to be set aside.

5. It was further submitted that on earlier occasions, on 01.04.2025, 19.04.2025 and 24.06.2025, on similar and routine allegations, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner, but they were subsequently either closed or withdrawn with a warni