Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6553 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shankar Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nandini Pandey,Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar,Babita Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sati Prasad Singh @ Satish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Satish Kumar Singh for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. Despite service of notice on respondent No.4 nobody has responded on its behalf. 3. As per office report dated 19.11.2024, notice is deemed sufficient on respondent No.4. Thus, the Court proceeds to decide the matter. 4. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 04.10.2019 as approved on 02.12.2019. The copies of the said orders are Annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition respectively. Also under challenge are the chargesheets dated 05.07.2019 and 06.12.2019, copies of which are annexed as Annexure- 3 & 4 to the writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having been suspended in October, 2019, the inquiry proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner by means of the chargesheets dated 05.07.2019 and 06.12.2019 have still not been completed and there cannot be any occasion for the prolonged suspension of the petitioner. 6. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.30641 of 2012, decided on 30.10.2013, wherein this Court has held that there cannot be any prolonged suspension of an employee. 7. Apart from the fact that the suspension order is of October, 2019, having been approved by the competent authority on 02.12.2019, and thus it being a case of prolonged suspension of the petitioner, the other aspect of the matter is that a perusal of impugned suspension order would indicate that no reasons have been indicated in the order impugned as to why the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Gautam (supra) the suspension order and approval order dated 04.10.2019 & 02.12.2019 respectively, copies of which are Annexures 1 & 2 to the petition, are quashed. However, it is open for the respondents to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Reena/- Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench