Archana Saini vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

The present petition has been filed with the prayer to stay the effect and operation of the show-cause notice dated 03.11.2025, issued by the respondent no.2 i.e. Director of Education (Secondary Education).

¶10

The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner were terminated which was challenged by the petitioner while instituting a Writ bearing Writ A No.5877/2025, wherein the following order has been passed on 27.01.2025. The operative portion of the order dated 27.01.2025 is extracted hereinunder:

¶11

"9. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed in terms of the judgement and order dated 08.05.2025, setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, so far as it relates to the present petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid her regular salary.

¶12

10. It is needless to say that it is always open for the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner by issuing a fresh show cause notice enclosing therewith all relevant materials and the evidences relating to the allegations seeking explanation from the petitioner and after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed by affording an opportunity of personal

¶13

WRIA No. 14419 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

hearing. The aforesaid exercise, if it is so required, may be undertaken with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks. "

¶16

Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that while passing the order, the liberty was given to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner and six weeks' time was granted to undertake all the proceedings in expedition. He submitted that after passing of six months, a show-cause notice has been issued on 03.11.2025 which is challenged hereinunder. He submitted that law is settled in this regard in Abhishek prabhakar awasthi versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others (Allahabad High Court) F.B. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 and State of U.P versus Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891. As per the aforesaid law rendered, the time period fixed by the Court cannot be ignored unless, time period for concluding such inquiry is extended by the Court concerned. He submitted that there is no default on the part of the petitioner as the show-cause notice even has been issued after about more than five months. Therefore, submission is that the issuance of show-cause notice is against the settled proposition of law and the same may be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to save the show-cause notice dated 03.11.2025 but he has failed to substantiate his argument regarding the settled proposition of law which were the field in the present matter.

¶18

Let a detailed counter affidavit be filed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents within a period of three weeks. One week, thereafter, is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.

¶19

List thereafter.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of show-cause notice dated 03.11.2025 shall remain stayed. It is further clarified that no proceeding shall commence, unless the time period is extended.

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

December 15, 2025/V. Sinha

¶23

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

Archana Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Vs U.O.I.Thru Secy.Communications Ministry Newdelhi and Ors.

Rizwanullah Qidwai Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Education Deptt.and Ors.

Dhirendra Singh Vs Govt. of U.P.Thru Pradhan Sachiv Parivahan Vibhag and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Prerana Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education Research and 2 Others