Manjay Kumar Sharma vs State of Up and 4 Others

" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the payment of arrears and further salary to the petitioner after disapproval of the suspension order dated 01.05.2025 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to the extent directed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to complete the inquiry against the petitioner by the disciplinary proceeding with period of one month. (Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition).

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as Assistant Clerk in the Institution."

¶14

Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the suspension order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Management has already been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria vide order dated 13.08.2025. It is also submitted that while passing the impugned disapproval order, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria beyond jurisdiction has directed the concerned Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry within a month. It is also submitted that District Inspector of Schools concerned has no power to direct the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry in time bound manner. The District Inspector of Schools has only power to approve or disapprove the suspension order and therefore, the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to the extent that enquiry be concluded within the prescribed period is bad in law and is to be set aside.

¶15

Per contra, Sri R. K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 vehemently opposed the instant writ petition

¶16

WRIA No. 13578 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

and submitted that District Inspector Schools has power to direct any Enquiry Officer while approving or disapproving the suspension order for conclusion of enquiry in time bound manner and there are no violation of statutory provision in passing the impugned order as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that as there is no illegality in the order impugned, the instant writ petition has no merit and the same is to be dismissed.

¶19

Sri Ojha, learned Senior counsel submitted that petitioner has not joined the school after disapproval of the suspension order.

¶20

Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner at this juncture contradicted the aforesaid submissions on instructions.

¶21

Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel on instructions undertakes that if petitioner will join the school , his salary shall be paid to him.

¶22

Heard Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri Jintendra Singh, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶23

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties, the enquiry committee is directed to complete the enquiry pending against the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. It is also directed that if petitioner will join the institute, the Management/authority concerned shall pay his salary as per his entitlement.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶26

September 11, 2025 AKT

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management Sri Paniniya Gurukul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Srimati Anita vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Jitendra Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dev Pati Ram vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M S.D. Ayurvedic Pharmacy College G.T. Road vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Shalini Dubey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others