Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41299 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3488 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Vandana Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1.Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. This is the second round of litigation. 3. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.12579 of 2024, Smt. Vandana Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:165912, whereby suspension order dated 8.8.2024 passed by District Basic Education Officer was impugned. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2024. For reference, same order is reproduced hereinafter: "Counter affidavit filed by Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is taken in the record. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1- State and Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel assisted by Shri Suneet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The disciplinary enquiry has been set in motion against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been served upon her. The charges, if proven, may lead to a major penalty (without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner). The suspension order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi has been made in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. No cause for interference is made out in the impugned suspension order dated 08.08.2024. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the enquiry is moving at a snail's pace. There is no sense of urgency in the department. Suspension order against the petitioner may well continue indefinitely. Faced with this, Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel assisted by Shri Suneet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that the enquiry is liable to be completed within a reasonable period of time. The respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. In case the enquiry is not concluded in the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is constrained to approach this Court since the time provided in the aforesaid order to conclude the inquiry within a period of four months has not been concluded, therefore, he has now a good case to challenge the suspension order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that inquiry has now been concluded and inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 12.3.2025 and it is likely that show cause notice may be issued today and with co-operation of petitioner inquiry is likely to be concluded within a short period. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is not a case of respondents that petitioner has not co-operated during inquiry and once this writ petition was filed, respondents hastely concluded the inquiry and submitted an inquiry report. However, till date, no show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, therefore, suspension order may be kept in abeyance so that he may get full salary. 7. Learned Senior Counsel assured that petitioner will co- operate during further inquiry. 8. I have considered above submissions and take note that this is a second round of litigation. 9. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court has directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of four months. However, till date inquiry though concluded, but report thereof along with show-cause notice has not been served upon the petitioner, therefore it appears that time limit provided by the Court in earlier round of litigation to complete the inquiry within a period of four weeks has not been followed. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court is of opinion that in the interest of justice, this writ petition be disposed of with a direction that impugned suspension order be kept in abeyance till the finalization or conclusion of inquiry. It is made clear that petitioner will co-operate in the further course of inquiry and in case of default, respondents will be at liberty to take recourse of available legal remedy. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case so far as charges against the petitioner is concerned. 12. With the aforesaid direction and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad