Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Chandra Pal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 63215 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 5195 (23 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


                                                                                Court No. 39

                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63215 of 2006

                                       Chandra Pal


                                  State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner had been performing and discharging his duty as Headmaster at Primary Pathshala Khargi Nagla, District Badaun. Petitioner was made In-Charge of the construction of primary Pathshala Khargi Nagla. Assistant Basic Education Officer, Kadar Chowak submitted report that construction work, which was being carried out by  petitioner, same was contrary to the standard prescribed. District Basic Education Officer, Badaun on 27.5.2005 proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension and appointed Assistant Basic Education Officer, Kadar Chowak as Inquiry Officer. In-spite of the fact that petitioner has been placed under suspension, no disciplinary proceedings whatsoever have been undertaken against petitioner. On presentation of writ petition before this court, this court on 21.11.2006 passed following order, which is being quoted below:-

"     Let Basic Shiksha Adhkari Badaun file counter affidavit stating as to whether inquiry against the petitioner in respect whereof he was placed under suspension has been completed or not. In case inquiry has not been completed so far, reasons for the delay must also be explained.

    Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent nos. 1,2, and 3 shall file counter affidavit by the next date fixed.

      List this petition on 29.1.2007"

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and therein stand has been taken that under the Scheme for  Education to  all the  School Building of  Naveen Prathamik Vidyalaya Kharginagla, Block Kadar Chowk, Budaun was got to be constructed through petitioner. Petitioner was placed under suspension, as he failed to get the  construction done according to standard prescribed.  Counter affidavit reflects that on the direction of the District Magistrate, Badaun, Chief Development Officer, Badaun constituted three members Committee under the Chairmanship of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering, Badaun  for  inspection and report about construction of the School Building of Kharginagla Block Kadar Chowk. It has been contended that petitioner was asked to get defect removed, but said defect was  not removed. Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 25.11.2006 informed that in-spite of repeated directions, petitioner has not removed the defect, and also suggested that valuation be got done through the Executive Engineer and action be taken to recover the amount. Thereafter valuation has been done  and order was passed on 2.12.2006 for recovery of an amount of  Rs.1,05,000/- from petitioner.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein it has been sought to be contended that entire allegations leveled is wholly incorrect and construction work has rightly been carried out.

After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition is being taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri S.M. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, neither departmental inquiry is contemplated nor is pending nor any charge sheet has been issued, as such continuance of suspension is  not at all justified in the fact and circumstances of the present  case, and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed and suspension order is liable to be quashed.

Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that stand of department is clear and categorical in the counter affidavit, as such no orders are required to passed in favour of  petitioner.

After respective arguments have been advanced, issue, which is to be looked into as to whether suspension order in the  fact of the present case is liable to be continued or not. Petitioner has been placed under suspension on 27.5.2005 on the ground that construction work  which has been  carried out, same is not as per  standard prescribed. Till date no charge sheet has been served upon petitioner, neither any steps whatsoever has been undertaken for direction of holding of the inquiry. This court on 21.11.2006 had asked  Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who is competent authority in the matter of suspension  to give full details as to whether inquiry has been conducted or not. In case inquiry has not been completed so far, reasons  for the delay be explained.  In the entire counter affidavit no where  there is any mention that District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has undertaken  any steps on the aspect of holding domestic inquiry rather entire,rather entire emphasis is that loss has been caused to the department  and  amount in question is to be recovered from  petitioner. The counter affidavit clearly reflects that qua the said complaint, District Basic Eduction Officer is neither contemplating any inquiry nor any inquiry whatsoever is pending. In the counter affidavit, no where has been made mention as to whether disciplinary proceeding is to be undertaken against the petitioner or not pursuant to  suspension order. The entire emphasis in the counter affidavit on the factum of the recovery of amount and not at all as to whether disciplinary proceeding would be undertaken or not . Consequently, in the present case, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate that any disciplinary proceeding  is either contemplated or pending, as such there is no occasion to continue  suspension order.

In this circumstances and in this background impugned order of suspension dated 27.5.2005 Annexure-1 is quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone on the question of validity of the recovery proceeding and in case petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery proceeding, it is always open to him to  question the validity of the said proceeding.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.

Dt. 23.3.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.