Rajani Sankhwar Vs Sri Vijai Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer Hardoi and 2 Others

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 987 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajani Sankhwar Opposite Party :- Sri Vijai Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer Hardoi And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 11938 of 2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant as well as against one Priyanka Jaiswal as such feeling aggrieved with the action of respondents, a petition was filed by the applicant as Writ-A No. 11938 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2024.

¶8

The order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 11938 of 2024 is as under:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 4 & 5.

¶10

No notice need be issued to the respondents no. 6 & 7 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶11

Under challenge is the suspension order dated 31.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

¶12

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after filing of the instant writ petition he has been served with the charge sheet dated 05.12.2024.

¶13

Considering that the charge sheet has now been issued to the petitioner as such, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said inquiry may be directed to be decided within a time bound manner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his reply to the charge sheet within two weeks. After submission of the reply, the respondents shall conclude the inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.

¶14

Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry proceedings and in case the petitioner does not cooperate in the inquiry

¶15

proceedings, the Inquiry Officer would be at liberty to inform the petitioner in writing about his non-cooperation and the period of noncooperation would be excluded from the aforesaid period."

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the aforesaid order of the writ Court was served on the respondents through registered post on 20.12.2024, but that order has not been complied with till today. He next submits that the respondents-officers are annoyed because the applicant has filed aforesaid writ petition. He vehemently submits that in the case of similarly situated person, namely, Priyanka Jaiswal, proceeding has already been dropped and she has been allowed to work.

¶17

6. List this case on 09.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

¶18

In the meantime, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel who is appearing for District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi shall seek written instructions from respondent no.1 that why the order of the writ Court has not been complied within letter and spirit and shall also explain that how the applicant has been discriminated with similarly situated person, namely, Priyanka Jaiswal.

¶19

Let a copy of this contempt application be provided to Sri Prashant Kumar Singh by learned counsel for the applicant, forthwith.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Arpan

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajani Sankhwar v. Sri Vijai Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer Hardoi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajani Sankhwar v. Sri Vijai Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer Hardoi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anuj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh Vs Sri Mehendra Deo, Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Lko.

Jagdeesh Prasad Mishra Vs Sri Shiv Kumar Ojha Distt. Inspector of Schools Pratapgarh

Ram Sidhar vs Dr. Shashi Sekhar (S.D.M.), Ambedkar Nagar

Qamar Jahan vs Sri Prathmesh Kumar, the Vice Chairman, Lko. Development Authority, Lko.

Dr. Kamala Yadav @ Kamla Yadav vs Shri Ranjan Kumar Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Ayush Lko.