HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14173 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and the learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order dated 14.08.2026 has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on vague allegations only, which are as follows:- "1. वषर् 2025-26 में स्वीकृ त िदव्यांग शौचालय का िनमार्ण ससमय पूणर् नहीं कराया गया। संलग्नक पत्रांक /55/2026-27 िदनांक 13.05.2026 2. बार-बार िनदेर्श देने के बाद भी वतर्मान माह में िकसी भी छात्र का िनपुण प्लस ऐप पर असेसमेंट नहीं िकया गया। माह जुलाई में के वल 4 प्रितशत (311 के सापेक्ष 14) छात्रों का ही असेसमेंट िकया गया। 3. एम.डी.एम. गुणवत्तापूणर् न बनाया जाना। 4. एम.डी.एम. मे वास्तिवक लाभािन्वत छात्रों की संख्या न दशार्कर संख्या को बढ़ाकर एम. डी. एम. पंिजका में अंिकत कर शासकीय धन का दुरुपयोग करना। 5. कम्पोिजट ग्रांट का सदुपयोग न करना। 6. िवद्यालय में समय से उपिस्थत न होना।" Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a delay in getting the construction work of toilets (for the handicapped) done as the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave for the period from Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : K.K. Rao, Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Singh Kailash Pati .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 18.01.2026 to 14.02.2026. The aforesaid fact has not been considered while placing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that the allegations are not such as to warrant a major penalty, hence the suspension is in violation of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the allegations are specific, wherein allegation No. 2 states that mid-day meal was distributed to only 14 students as against 311 students, which itself is quite specific. 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 his 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 two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry. September 9, 2026 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 14173 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad