Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22519 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 813 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jay Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The order of suspension dated 11.02.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Amroha, passed is under challenge in the present petition before this Court. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that more than two years have already been lapsed but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter. It is argued that the first charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 12.06.2023 and fresh charge-sheet has been served upon him on 23.11.2024 and reply to the fresh charge-sheet has been submitted by the petitioner on 10.01.2025 but till date no decision has been taken. It is argued that the petitioner could not be place under suspension for unlimited period and in support of his arguments, he relied upon a judgement of this Court passed in the case of Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2009 1 AWC 691 All.the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as follows:- "8. Secondly, from the record, it is evident that the order of suspension was passed on 3-11-2004 and after almost two years and ten months, on 10-9-2007, the Assistant Basic Education Officer issued charge sheet to the petitioner which has been replied by the petitioner on 11-9-2007 and, thereafter almost 11 months have passed since then, but the enquiry has not been completed so far. The question to be answered would be whether such prolonged suspension is justified. The answer is no. The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceeded with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct, the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. Similarly an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at ail without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function." 3. In this view of the matter, it argued that the order of suspension deserves to be quashed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the order, it is clear that the the order of suspension has been passed against the petitioner for more than two years ago and till date inquiry conducted against the petitioner has not been completed and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anshu Bharti (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the suspension order could not be survived for unlimited period, the order of suspension dated 11.02.2023 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. 6. 6. However the respondents are at liberty to proceeding with the pending inquiry and complete the same expeditiously but not beyond three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Consequential benefits for the period of suspension would depend upon the aforesaid enquiry. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad