HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13687 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.5 is taken on record. Heard Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the suspension order dated 15.9.2025, of the Committee of Management-respondent no.5 as well as the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools- respondent no.4, approving the decision of the Committee of Management. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension is outcome of malafide act of the respondent no.5and reason behind the same is that at the very initial stage, when the salary of the petitioner was not being paid, he instituted Writ-A No.5133 of 2000, before this Court and he also agitated claim with respect to non payment of salary, with stronger potency, before the Committee of Management as well as the State and, therefore, the same resulted into the suspension order. He further submitted that in fact, the order of suspension went up to the District Inspector of Schools for its approval and the same has been approved without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is lacking Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shobhit Mohan Shukla Ram Pal Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the principle of natural justice and, therefore, the order of approval of the District Inspector of Schools vitiates in the eyes of law. In addition, he argued that the case of the present petitioner is covered with the ratio of Judgment rendered in Writ-A No.4093 of 2019, Deshraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 15.3.2019. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order of approval as well as order of suspension are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner which may lead to major punishment and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been put under suspension. Learned counsel for the State has supported the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Committee of Management. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the Committee of Management by the resolution has decided to place the petitioner under suspension, which went upto the District Inspector of Schools for its approval, who ultimately passed the order dated 31.10.2025, while approving the suspension order, resolved by the Committee of Management. The question, which has crop up before this Court is whether, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior of passing the order of approval on the decision of the Committee of Management. This Court finds that the Committee of Management resolved for suspension of the services of the petitioner and passed the order of suspension, which ultimately went for final decision/ approval of the District Inspector of Schools and once the District Inspector of Schools took decision for approval that certainly causes prejudice to such employee. Further identical controversy has been settled in the case of Deshraj Singh (supra), which covers the field of the issue involved here in the present matter. Consequently, the order impugned dated 31.10.2025 by which the approval WRIA No. 13687 of 2025 2 was accorded by the District Inspector Schools is hereby quashed. The petitioner as well as the Committee of Management shall be afforded opportunity, by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, while fixing a date for hearing and thereafter, an appropriate order will be passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It is further directed that the enquiry contemplated, if any, shall be completed, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order, before the District Inspector of Schools. Needless to say that that the petitioner shall be paid salary regularly unless any adversarial order is passed against him. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is partly allowed. November 27, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 13687 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench