Writ petitioner, a Block Education Officer, challenged an order of suspension following allegations of recommending appointments based on forged testimonials in an enquiry report. The court found no ground to interfere, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1716 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jagdish Kumar Srivastave Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Maurya,Manoj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Upadhyay learned Brief Holder for the State.
This petition impugns an order of suspension dated 10 January 2019.
The allegation on the basis of which the impugned order has come to be passed is that in an enquiry report dated 03 December 2018 it was found that the petitioner alongwith two other person who were members of a Selection Committee had proceeded to recommend the appointment of two Assistant Teachers on the basis of forged and fabricated testimonials and material.
The challenge to the impugned order is principally based on the fact that one of the Assistant Teachers who was so appointed had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No. 398 of 2019 in which an interim order has been passed. However as this Court reads the order dated 10 January 2019 passed on the aforementioned writ petition, all that was provided by the learned Judge was for the petitioner there to be permitted to continue to work in the institution in question. The learned Judge had further provided that the issue of payment of salary would be considered on the next date. There is no finding prima facie or otherwise in this interlocutory order with respect to the enquiry report dated 03 December 2018.
Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations which are levelled against the petitioner who is a Block Education Officer, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of suspension. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2019 faraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of suspension against a Block Education Officer accused of recommending appointments based on forged testimonials.
Whether a prior interim order allowing the petitioner to continue work without findings on the enquiry report affects the validity of the subsequent suspension order.
Jagdish Kumar Srivastave
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
