Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36838 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6998 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Garima Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Mishra,Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Dr Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 06.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher, has been placed under suspension. 4. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the same is based on a report, which has been submitted by the Block Development Officer dated 15.05.2025. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the report primarily points out two things namely (a) that the petitioner is in the habit of submitting frivolous complaints; and (b) that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 15.10.2024 to 18.10.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the perusal of service book, extract of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, would indicate that the aforesaid period from 15.10.2024 to 18.10.2024 has already been sanctioned as medial leave consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension on the basis of said allegation. 7. So far as ground of submission of frivolous complaints is concerned, it is contended that it is always open for the respondents to enquire into the said complaints and there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to be placed under suspension merely because she has submitted complaints with regard to any particular grievance of her or against a particular employee and even if the complaint may have been found to be fallacious, the same would not entail imposition of any major punishment on the petitioner. 8. 8. Considering the aforesaid more particularly when the nature of allegations as have been leveled in the impugned suspension order prima facie do not indicate that if proved the same may result into a major punishment against the petitioner and even otherwise once the aforesaid period for which the petitioner is said to remain unauthorizedly absent has duly been sanctioned and it is always the prerogative of an employee to submit any complaint which can always be enquired into by the respondents as such there does not appear to be any occasion for the respondents to pass the impugned suspension order against the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid, impugned suspension order dated 06.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 is quashed. The petition is allowed. 10. It would always be open for the respondents to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench