# Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-23
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18689 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49143
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956 - Suspension -
Working as Head Master - Charge of
posting
objectionable
posts
regarding
Hindu Gods and Goddesses and Bhramins
- Suspension, when may be justified -
Held, order of suspension should not
normally depend merely on the gravity of
charges
but
should
depend
upon
a
consideration of the question whether it is
necessary to keep the delinquent away
from his post he occupies. The effect of
passing an order of suspension is to keep
such delinquent away from his office
temporarily - There may be cases where
suspension may be justified also to avoid
misuse of the authority of his office,
misuse which may result in obstruction to
the proper trial of the charges against him
- High Court, although directed the
enquiry to be continued and restrained the
petitioner from making such post, but
found no need to keep the petitioner
under suspension. (Para 5, 9 and 11)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
paid all arrears of salary which have
remained unpaid during this period of time
within a month. Regular payment of salary
shall be resumed forthwith.

16. Let this order be communicated to
the Chariman of Nagar Palika Parishad,
Kairana, Shamli and the Executive Officer
of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kairana,
Shamli by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 363
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 18689 of 2022

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Prakash Shukla

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956 - Suspension -
Working as Head Master - Charge of
posting
objectionable
posts
regarding
Hindu Gods and Goddesses and Bhramins
- Suspension, when may be justified -
Held, order of suspension should not
normally depend merely on the gravity of
charges
but
should
depend
upon
a
consideration of the question whether it is
necessary to keep the delinquent away
from his post he occupies. The effect of
passing an order of suspension is to keep
such delinquent away from his office
temporarily - There may be cases where
suspension may be justified also to avoid
misuse of the authority of his office,
misuse which may result in obstruction to
the proper trial of the charges against him
- High Court, although directed the
enquiry to be continued and restrained the
petitioner from making such post, but
found no need to keep the petitioner
under suspension. (Para 5, 9 and 11)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ashwani Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
and Shri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The challenge laid in this writ
petition is to an order dated 3.11.2022
passed
by
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari,
Bhadohi-respondent No. 3 whereby the
petitioner
has
been
placed
under
suspension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is working as
Incharge Head Master in Composite School
Bhiriura, Block Gyanpur, District Bhadohi.
The work and conduct of the petitioner has
throughout remained satisfactory and there
is no complaint whatsoever in his discharge
of duties as Incharge Headmaster. The
petitioner has received the impugned
suspension order on his WhatsApp number
and without giving any show cause notice
or opportunity of hearing, he has been
suspended. The allegations levelled against
the petitioner is vague. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that meantime a first
information report dated 4.11.2022 being
Case Crime No. 0213 of 2022, under
Sections 395A, 505 (2) IPC, Police Station
Gyanpur, District Bhadohi has been lodged
against the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that there is election
of Teachers Association and due to political
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rivalry upon an oral complaint, the
petitioner has been suspended by the
impugned order.

4. Shri R. P. Shukla, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has passedon a copy of complaint/application dated
4.11.2022
filed
by
Ambrish
Tiwari
addressed to the District Basic Education
Officer, Bhadohi along with photostat
copies of WhatsApp conversation, which
are taken on record.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that petitioner has
rightly been suspended. He has made a
WhatsApp Group in the name and style of
Poorva
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Sangh,
Bhadohi and is its Group Admin. The
petitioner
is
charged
with
posting
objectionable posts regarding Hindu Gods
and Goddesses and Bhramins and such
conduct has been found to violate the
provisions of U.P. Government Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956. Besides certain
general charges have been levelled against
the petitioner regarding discharge of his
duties as Incharge Headmaster of the
Institution.

6. A perusal of the impugned
suspension order dated 3.11.2022 reveals
that it is founded on the complaint filed by
one Ambrish Tiwary. An inquiry has also
been contemplated against the petitioner
and the Block Education Officer, Nagar
Chetra, Bhadohi and the Block Education
Officer, Aurai have been appointed as
Enquiry Officers and the petitioner has
been attached to BRC, Gyanpur.

7. Shri R. P. Shukla, learned counsel
appearing for respondents has placed on
record the complaint of Shri Ambrish
Tiwari which is dated 4.11.2022 annexing
the objectionable material. Surprisingly, the
suspension order dated 3.11.2022 just one
day before and appears to have been passed
without application of mind and looking
into the objectionable material. It is the
case of the petitioner that he is a victim of
political rivalry on account of elections of
the Teachers Association.

8. The Court has gone through the
complaint dated 4.11.2022 and the material
annexed thereto placed on record by Shri
R. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondents. The Court is of the opinion
that the post on the WhatsApp Group by
the petitioner appears to be an emotional
outburst of a disgruntled person. Whether it
constitutes a misconduct perhaps is the
subject matter of the inquiry contemplated
against
the
petitioner.
It
would
be
inappropriate for this Court to deal with
that issue now.

9. The petitioner is under suspension
since 3.11.2022. Suspension cannot be used
as a weapon to penalize the petitioner.
Continuation of suspension must be in
larger public interest. The continuation, if
pose threat to an ongoing inquiry such
delinquent employee need not be reinstated
pending such inquiry. In the opinion of the
Court the order of suspension should not
normally depend merely on the gravity of
charges
but
should
depend
upon
a
consideration of the question whether it is
necessary to keep the delinquent away from
his post he occupies. The effect of passing
an order of suspension is to keep such
delinquent
away
from
his
office
temporarily. Its objective is to remove him
from his sphere of influence during the
investigation into and treat of the charges
levelled against him. It may be that some or
many of the records which are in his
custody may have to be looked into. His
1 All. Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
colleagues or subordinates or sometimes
even his superiors in office may have to be
questioned. There may be cases where
suspension may be justified also to avoid
misuse of the authority of his office, misuse
which may result in obstruction to the
proper trial of the charges against him. The
situation could be met by the officer being
kept under suspension or in many cases
merely by transferring the delinquent away
from the scene, the choice necessarily
depending upon the exigencies of the
situation.

10. In the case at hand, there is
absolutely no need to keep the petitioner
under suspension. The respondents are
required to respond to the matter in an
unpassionate manner. What could be
gathered as a misconduct is already there
on his WhatsApp group. There is no scope
for the petitioner to interfere with any
material now gathered. Larger public
interest demands that the petitioner should
not be continued under suspension. This
Court is not interfering with the legality of
the suspension which is left open for
consideration in future. This Court is also
not adverting to the fact as to whether such
postings constitute a misconduct or not.
The Court has merely observed that there is
no imminent danger that would effect the
ongoing process of inquiry if the petitioner
is ordered to be reinstated. However, the
petitioner is restrained from making any
such posts on the WhatsApp group or any
portal on social media touching upon the
inquiry or any disciplinary action initiated
against him till the conclusion of the
inquiry against him.

11. Accordingly, the petitioner is
ordered to be reinstated in service. The
impugned
suspension
order
dated
3.11.2022 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, is set aside. The inquiry
initiated against the petitioner shall go on
and the same shall be brought to its logical
end within two months from the date of
service of certified copy of the order of this
Court.

12. Needless to say that the petitioner
shall cooperate in the ongoing inquiry.

13. With the aforesaid observation,
the writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 63110 of 2014
with other connected cases

Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri A.N. Tripathi, Sri R.P. Mishra,
Sri Ankush Sharma, Sri Govind Kumar Saxena,
Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shashi Dhar
Shukla, Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri
Ghanshyam Ojha, Sri C.B. Yadav, Sri Ankur
Sharma, Sri Shashi Nandan(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Ashok Khare, Sri G.K. Singh,
Sri H.P. Shahi, Sri Ram Dular, Sri Siddharth
Khare, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, Sri Purnendu
Kumar Singh, Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, Sri O.P.
Gupta, Sri Pankaj Kumar, Sri Bal Mukund, Sri
Sankalp Narain

A. Constitution of India - Article 73 -
Executive power and legislative power - Co-