Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33330 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2960 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indra Raj Singh,Shesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for Respondent-University and Sri I.R. Singh, Advocate for Respondent-4. 2. The Court finds that on face of it, the resolution adopted by Respondent- Committee of Management dated 24.10.2024, on basis of which petitioner before this Court was put under suspension again by means of impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and a fresh inquiry is initiated with regard to experience certificate of petitioner, is illegal. 3. It is not under much dispute that said issue was earlier part of litigation before this Court in Writ-A No. 5649 of 2020, which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 and challenge to it at the behest of Committee of Management before Division Bench of this Court as well as Supreme Court, remained unsuccessful. Supreme Court has rejected special leave petition filed by Respondent-Committee of Management vide order dated 27.09.2024 and soon thereafter within a period of less than one month, petitioner was put under suspension vide impugned order dated 25.10.2024. For reference relevant part of resolution dated 24.10.2024 is reproduced hereinafter: "प्रबन्धक महहोदय दद्वारद्वा सभद्वा कहो यह भभी अवगत करद्वायद्वा गयद्वा कक शभी कवनय ददबबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर दद्वारद्वा मद्वाननभीय उच्च न्यद्वायद्वालय प्रयद्वागरद्वाज मम यहोजजत ररट यद्वाकचकद्वा ससंख्यद्वा - 5649/2020 मम कद लसकचव, सम्पपूरद्वारनन्द ससंस्कक त कवश्वकवदद्वालय, वद्वारद्वारसभी दद्वारद्वा दद्वाजखिल प्रकत शपथ पत्र मम यह उकल्लिजखित हहै कक शभी कवनय ददबबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर कहो प्रद्वाचद्वायर पद कद्वा अनदमहोदन शभी ददगद्वार दबेवभी आदशर ससंस्कक त महद्वाकवदद्वालय , जगदभीशपदर, बजलयद्वा कबे अनदभव प्रमद्वार पत्र पर हभी ककयद्वा गयद्वा हहै। दपूसरभी तरफ शभी कवनय ददबबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर दद्वारद्वा उक ररट यद्वाकचकद्वा ससंख्यद्वा - 5649/2020 मम दद्वाजखिल ररज्वद्वाइसंडर एफफीडबेकवट ससंख्यद्वा - 02 मम शभीरद्वाम रूप ससंस्कक त महद्वाकवदद्वालय जमदआरभी, कछवद्वा, कमजद्वारपदर कद्वा पद्वापाँच वरर सबे अजधक अध्यद्वापक उपसस्थकत रजजस्टर दद्वाजखिल ककयद्वा गयद्वा हहै। प्रबन्धक दद्वारद्वा शभी कवनय ददबबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर कबे अनदभव प्रमद्वार पत्र सबे अवगत करद्वायबे गयबे समस्त प्रकरर एवसं घटनद्वाक्रम कहो ध्यद्वान मम रखितबे हहयबे उप प्रबन्धक महहोदय दद्वारद्वा ससंकदग्ध प्रतभीत हहो रहद्वा हहै। ऐसभी सस्थकत मम शअरभी कवनय ददबबे कबे अध्यद्वापन अनदभव प्रमद्वार पत्र कफी सत्यतद्वा कफी जद्वापाँच हबेतद तभीन सदस्यभी जद्वापाँच सकमकत /उर सकमकत कद्वा गठन ककयद्वा जद्वाय, जजससबे शभी कवनय ददबबे कबे अनदभव प्रमद्वार पत्र कफी सत्यतद्वा स्पष्ट हहो सकम । जद्वापाँच प्रकक्रयद्वा कबे ददौरद्वान शभी कवनय ददबबे कबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर पद पर कनयदक रहनबे सबे जद्वापाँच प्रकक्रयद्वा प्रभद्वाकवत हहोगभी, इसजलयबे शभी कवनय ददबबे प्रद्वाचद्वायर कहो जद्वापाँच कबे लसम्बत रहनबे तक महद्वाकवदद्वालय प्रद्वाचद्वायर पद सबे तत्कद्वाल प्रभआव सबे कनलसम्बत ककयद्वा जद्वाय। कनलम्बन अवजध मम शभी कवनय ददबबे कहो कनयमद्वानदसद्वार जभीवन कनवद्वारह भतद्वा दबेय हहोगद्वा। महद्वाकवदद्वालय कहत मम तथद्वा महद्वाकवदद्वालय कबे सदचद्वारू रूप सबे ससंचद्वालन हबेतद कशक्षक ससंवगर कफी वरररठतम सहद्वायक अध्यद्वाकपकद्वा शभीमतभी नभीलम चदौबबे कहो कद्वायरवद्वाहक प्रद्वाचद्वायर पद पर अगबेतर आदबेशशों तक कद्वायर करनबे हबेतद आदबेकशत ककयद्वा जद्वाय।" 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that it is nothing but to override the judgments passed by Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court as well as Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Committee of Management has made an objection on maintainability of writ petition that petitioner has an efficacious remedy to approach the Vice Chancellor, however, the Court finds that since on face of it, impugned order is nothing but to override the orders passed by Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court as well as Supreme Court, therefore, the argument of alternative remedy is rejected since it is well settled that in such circumstances there is no bar to entertain the writ petition. 6. During course of argument, the Court has observed that Committee of Management can review its resolution with liberty to proceed with inquiry since charge sheet has been submitted vide order dated 30.10.2024, however, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Committee of Management submits that he has no instruction to contact his client and he seeks time to file counter affidavit. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that since by a reasoned order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the termination order, which was upheld by Division Bench and further challenge was rejected by Supreme Court, the above referred contents of resolution, on basis of which impugned suspension order was passed, are unsustainable. 8. It appears that Manager of Respondent-Committee of Management and its Members are not able to read and understand the above referred judgments and its contents. The liberty granted by Division Bench to initiate an inquiry against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, however, such liberty appears to be misused and on basis of pleading in earlier round of litigation fresh inquiry appear to be a tool to harass the petitioner. No fresh material is basis of subsequent inquiry that experience certificate was forged. The Court of the view that impugned suspension order is contemptuous in nature, however, Court is not initiating any proceeding at this stage. 9. The contents of charges in fresh charge sheet also appears to march over the orders passed by Coordinate Bench, Division Bench and Supreme Court and since it is not under challenge, therefore, at this stage Court is not entering into the said issue. 10. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned suspension order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Respondent-4 is hereby set aside. Since petitioner is constrained to approach this Court due to an absolutely illegal order, therefore, he is entitled to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by Respondent-4, i.e., Committee of Management, Adarsh Shriram Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Chhangapur, Leduka, Jaunpur through its Manager, within a period of three weeks from today. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad