HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13243 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. The instructions passed on to the Court today are kept on record. Heard Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Hare Ram, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the suspension order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3- District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya as well as further prayer to direct the respondents not to interfere for holding and working to the petitioner on the post of acting Principle in the institution Uccha Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Chhimara, Vikas Khand Safai, District Etawah and pay the regular salary month to month if and when fell as well as further prayer to direct the respondents to pay the arears of the service since the date of order passed by competent authority for placing to the petitioner at original post of acting principle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry report dated 31.03.2025, as detailed in the suspension order, was not served upon the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him in the suspension order. It is further submitted that the petitioner received only a notice dated 27.03.2025, to which he submitted a reply on 26.05.2025. However, the suspension order was passed without considering this reply, therefore, the suspension order is bad in the eye of law. He further submits that in view of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, a person is to be placed under suspension only when it is deemed necessary. However, in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hare Ram Rajeev Kumar Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the present case, this requirement does not appear to have been adhered to. He further submits that the petitioner's suspension is contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5, on the basis of instructions, submits that the charge sheet has already been served upon the petitioner through registered post on 18.08.2025. Furthermore, the petitioner acknowledges receiving the notice dated 27.03.2025, and submitting a reply thereto, after which the suspension order was passed. He further argues that the suspension order is based upon the inspection report dated 31.05.2025, and the allegations therein were already communicated to the petitioner through the show cause notice dated 27.03.2025. Therefore, an inquiry is contemplated and there is no illegality in the impugned order. This Court is of the considered opinion that the charges so levelled against the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the explanation and documents relied upon by the petitioner can be a defence in the departmental inquiry, as during departmental inquiry, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to prove her innocence. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the departmental inquiry be initiated against the petitioner and brought to its logical end, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. September 8, 2025 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 13243 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad