Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3339 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 602 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vimal Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 4, and Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6, which is taken on record. 2. No notice be issued to respondent no.7 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that of the three teachers who are working as Assistant Teacher in the Institution for the same charge only two teachers namely the petitioner and one Smt. Anju Lata have been placed under suspension. Smt. Anju Lata has subsequently been dismissed from service while no action action has been taken against the third teacher Smt. Shakeela Bano although the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of having submitted bills under her signatures which is an allegation with respect to all three teachers. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. & another - (1999) 6 SCC 257, it is contended that there cannot be any selective suspension inasmuch as persons similarly circumstanced should either all be placed under suspension or none of them should be placed under suspension and there cannot be any occasion of having suspended the petitioner on the same allegation and not having suspended the other teacher namely Smt. Shakeela Bano. 6. Responding, Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.5 and 6, states that Smt. Shakeela Bano was the whistle blower who has pointed out the irregularities/illegalities that were being committed by the petitioner and others which has resulted in the petitioner being placed under suspension by means of the order impugned dated 21.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, and has also been issued with a charge sheet dated 14.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, and consequently it cannot be said that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced with Smt. Shakeela Bano. 7. Sri Awasthi also states that a show cause notice had been issued to Smt. Shakeela Bano to which she had submitted a reply whereby she has indicated that she has never appended her signatures to the salary bills while in the case of the petitioner it is specific case that the petitioner has submitted the salary bills even though she was not authorised to do so. 8. The law pertaining to selective suspension has already been crystalized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra). For the sake of convenience, the judgment in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra) is reproduced as under:- "7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1-12-1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two- and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken." 9. From perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra) it clearly emerges that Hon'ble Supreme Court has been of the view that there cannot be any selective suspension of the employees inasmuch as no action is taken against the persons who may be similarly circumstanced and charged and suspending a particular individual. 10. From the arguments as raised by the parties it clearly emerges that of the three Assistant Teachers one Assistant Teacher has been dismissed from service after having earlier been placed under suspension while the petitioner has been suspended and a charge sheet has been issued to her and no action has been taken against the third Assistant Teacher. It could be that the third teacher may not be involved, as stated by Sri Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.5 and 6, but this is an aspect which is to be considered by the competent authority but clearly it is a case that the respondents have adopted to discrimination in suspension. 11. Accordingly, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra), the suspension order dated 21.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. However, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner have not been interfered with and would be taken to their logical end in accordance with law and relevant rules. 12. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench