Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131124 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8724 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sachin Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Verma,Vikas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivendra Kumar Singh,Udit Chandra Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Udit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3 vide which the petitioner has been placed under suspension without assigning any reason and a further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and pay the remaining dues after suspension of the service and also pay the subsistence allowances along with the expenses. In compliance of the previous order passed by this Court on 28.07.2025, the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that works were assigned to the petitioner on 04.08.2024 and 05.11.2024 but explaining the reasons as to why he could not perform the aforesaid works as assigned, he has submitted a reply, however, without considering the aforesaid reply, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. submits that proper show cause notices dated 7.08.2024, 09.11.2024 and 11.04.2025 have been given to the petitioner, however, no reply has been filed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in view of settled position of law. It is a trite law that the suspension is not a punishment. The Supreme Court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, has held that ordinarily the High Court should not stay suspension, transfer and termination orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that the suspension order has been passed in violation of any rule or is based on mala fide. Accordingly, no interference is called for. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Mathura, to complete the disciplinary proceedings/inquiry, after issuing fresh notice to the petitioner within two weeks from today and providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month, subject to cooperation of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. The personal presence of the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura is exempted. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Kalp Nath Singh Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad