Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1846 (ALL)

Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of U. P.

2022-11-23

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 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 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 passed-on 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. 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. 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 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 un-passionate 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.