Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83989 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61532 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Suneeti Saxena Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Singh,A.N.Singh,Amar Bahadur Singh,Satyam Singh,Shiv Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Dwivedi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition is filed questioning the orders of second respondent dated 7.8.2010 and also the orders of third respondent dated 19.08.2008. 3. Initially, the respondent no.4-committee of management placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 29.8.2007 and subsequently, vide order dated 15.3.2008, her services were terminated and the said orders were sent to respondent no.3. Taking the facts into consideration, respondent no.3 has modified the termination order into stoppage of five increments. Against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent no.2, which was decided vide impugned order dated 7.8.2010. Assailing the punishment order as well as the appellate order, present writ petition has been filed. 4. The main ground in assailing the order dated 7.8.2010 is that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice before passing/deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondents have not provided any opportunity in the proceedings before the appellate authority, hence, requested to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the appellate authority to decide the matter after providing opportunity to the petitioner. 5. Replying to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in fact the impugned order clearly discloses that the authorities have issued instructions to both the petitioner as well as fourth respondent while deciding the appeal and both were present and after hearing them, impugned orders were passed. 6. Considering the submissions made and perusal of the record, it appears that the appellate authority has provided opportunity to the petitioner before passing the orders. The fact remains that the said punishment order was also implemented against the petitioner. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad