High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pradip Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 28043 of 2007  RD-AH 10710 (22 June 2007)
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
The petitioner is a Sah Samanyak (Assistant Teacher). By an order dated 8.5.2007 passed by District Basic Education Officer the petitioner is said to have been placed under suspension. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that he has worked till 14.6.2007 on which date the impugned order dated 8.5.2007 was served. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in back date. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges for placing the petitioner under suspension are absolutely vague.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
On a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the charges on which the petitioner has been placed under suspension are vague and as such the suspension in pursuance of the said charges does not appear to be justified. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is provided that the enquiry as contemplated by the impugned order may go on and be completed as expeditiously as possible in which the petitioner shall cooperate and not seek any unnecessary adjournment. Till the completion of enquiry and passing of order by the disciplinary authority, the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 8.5.2007 shall remain abeyance.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.