HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14217 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Instruction has been produced today on behalf of respondent-BSA, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension order dated 28.07.2026, passed by Respondent No. 3 (District Basic Education Officer, Meerut), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension from the post of Headmaster. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Headmaster at Prathamik Vidyalaya Bahadurpur No. 1, Sarurpur, District Meerut, and has always performed his duties with utmost sincerity. The present dispute arises out of an incident on 25.07.2026, which led to a gathering of guardians outside the school gate on 27.07.2026, raising an alarm. Consequently, an inspection was conducted during which the following facts came to light:- "1. ग्रामवािसयों द्वारा बताया गया िक िवद्यालय की छु ट्टी के समय अिधकांश िशक्षक िवद्यािथयों के बाहर िनकलने से पूवर् ही िवद्यालय से प्रस्थान कर जाते हैं तथा कक्षों में ताला लगाने का कायर् िवद्यािथयों से कराया जाता है, जबिक यह उत्तरदाियत्व पूणर्तः िवद्यालय स्टाफ का है। 2. िवद्यालय के कक्षों में प्रायः िवद्युत पंखे चलते हुए छोड़ िदए जाते हैं, िजससे िवद्यालय प्रबंधन में लापरवाही पिरलिक्षत होती है। Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmi Kant Trigunait Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devesh Vikram Rajeev Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. ग्रामवािसयों द्वारा यह भी िशकायत की गई िक कु छ अध्यािपकाएँ िवद्यालय अविध में मोबाइल फोन के अत्यिधक उपयोग में व्यस्त रहती हैं, िजससे िशक्षण कायर् प्रभािवत होता है। 4. घटना के समय कक्षा 5 में श्री उमेश कु मार, सहायक अध्यापक अध्यापन कायर् कर रहे थे। उनसे तथा कथा- 5 के तीन िवद्यािथयों से पूछताछ की गई। िवद्यािथयों ने बताया िक कक्ष बंद करने से पूवर् अंदर देखा गया था, परंतु संबंिधत छात्रा संभवतः िकसी कोने में बैठी अथवा िछपी होने के कारण िदखाई नहीं दी। छात्रा सामान्य से कमजोर एवं संकोची प्रवृित्त की प्रतीत हुई। 5. जांच में यह तथ्य भी संज्ञान में आया िक घटना वाले िदन श्री राजीव कु मार, प्रधानाध्यापक िवद्यालय समय समाप्त होने में लगभग 10-15 िमनट पूवर् िकसी आवश्यक कायर् से चले गए तथा िवद्यालय की िजम्मेदारी मौिखक रूप से श्री उमेश कु मार, सहायक अध्यापक को सौंप दी। इस संबंध में कोई िलिखत कायर्भार हस्तांतरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया। 6. िवद्यालय में कु ल 05 िशक्षक एवं 01 िशक्षािमत्र कायर्रत हैं, िजनमें थी राजीव कु मार (प्रधानाध्यापक), श्री उमेश कु मार (सहायक अध्यापक), श्रीमती अरुणा रानी (सहायक अध्यािपका), श्रीमती अनीता (सहायक अध्यािपका), श्रीमती शािलनी त्यागी (सहायक अध्यािपका) तथा श्री बालेश (िशक्षािमत्र) सिम्मिलत हैं। " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 25.07.2026, petitioner had already left the school for some important work after giving charge to one Mr. Umesh Kumar, Assistant Teacher. Therefore, petitioner is not responsible for the incident referred to in Point No. 5 of the aforesaid enquiry report. He next submits that the petitioner has always been careful and sincere in performing his duties. He also submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner is not of such a nature as would warrant imposition of any major penalty contemplated under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He further submits that petitioner has been attached to an institution, which is around 50 to 60 kilometres, therefore, during the course of enquiry, he may be attached to some nearby institution. He lastly submits that under such and circumstances, impugned suspension order is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, as per the instruction received by him, submits that charge sheet has already been submitted on 17.08.2026 and the enquiry shall be concluded within a period as directed by this Court. WRIA No. 14217 of 2026 2 7. 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the departmental inquiry so initiated against the petitioner, be 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. 9. In view of the request made by the petitioner for being attached to some nearby institution, it shall be open to the respondent authorities to consider and take appropriate decision in the matter. 10. Needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate in the aforesaid inquiry. September 9, 2026 Junaid WRIA No. 14217 of 2026 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad