Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118292 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9962 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tulsi Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.S. Pandey,Kartikey Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kartikey Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned suspension order dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and further prayer to direct the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner to his post and pay the arrears of salary pertaining to the suspension period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was issued a notice based on a complaint alleging removal of debris from demolished building without permission of Block Development Officer, mixing water in the milk, which is being provided to the children, arriving late at school and disobeying the directions of the superior officials, to which he submitted his reply. He further submits that without considering the same, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. He has placed certain documents on record to show that all the allegations are incorrect, therefore, impugned suspension order is bad in the eyes of law and the same may be set aside. 4. Mr. Ram Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4, submits that from the records it is clear that the demolished building has not been used in the manner as claimed by the petitioner along with others, as there is no order passed by the Block Development Officer. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 5. 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. 6. 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 malafide. Accordingly, no interference is called for. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the second respondent- Basic Education Officer, District- Basti, to complete the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months subject to cooperation of the petitioner. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad