Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34559 (ALL)

SMT. PALAK CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/3929/2025 · 2025-04-10

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53425 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3929 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Palak Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Chahal,Diwakar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1.Heard Sri Ankit Chahal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prayers made in this writ petition are not happily worded since the petitioner only wants that an observation made in the impugned order be expunged since allegations made against her were not found correct as admittedly the petitioner was on leave at the relevant time but she is still aggrieved with an observation that " पररंततु वविदद्यालय मम कतु ल छद्यात्र नद्यामद्यारंकन कके सद्यापकेक्ष न्ययन छद्यात्र उपससस्थिवत कके सरंबरंध मम अधधररोवपत आररोप ककी आरंवशिक पतुवष्टि हरोतती हह" 3. On a query of this Court as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the said observation since she has been reinstated with salary, learned counsel replied that it may come against her for the purpose of promotion and other future service benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner has been reinstated with salary, therefore, inquiry has already been dropped and only in order to improve attendance of students, a warning is given, however, it does not fall even within a "minor punishment". 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 6. The prayers made in this writ petition are defective, however, considering the submissions, present matter is considered only qua to above referred observations made in the impugned order that petitioner has been given warning to improve presence of students which could not be considered against her future service benefits as it is not a punishment, therefore, without interfering with the said observations, this writ petition is disposed of with a clarification that any observation made in the impugned order will not come in way for purpose of her future service benefits. However, she will take endeavour to improve attendance of students.. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad