Smt Sonali Majumdar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Sonbhadra (Respondent no.4) whereby the petitioner has been suspended with immediate effect from the post of Headmistress In-charge, Composite School Parsoi, Block Chopan, District Sonbhadra (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition).

¶14

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Sonbhadra (Respondent No.4).

¶15

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Headmistress In-charge, Composite School Parsoi, Block Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

¶16

IV. Issue any such other and suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

V. Award cost of the writ petition."

¶18

WRIA No. 14444 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order dated 06.09.2025 has been passed in an ex-parte manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing or conducting any preliminary inquiry. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed in a cursory and arbitrary manner, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶21

Various facts and circumstances have been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition for challenging the order of suspension. The charges so levelled against the petitioner are also disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in that regard reliance has been placed upon various documents brought on record.

¶22

Learned for the respondents-BSA, on the basis of oral instructions, submits that preliminary inquiry has been done, on the basis of which, charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2025. He further submits that on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot set aside the order of punishment.

¶23

This Court is of the considered opinion that the charges so levelled against the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the explanation and documents relied upon by the petitioner can be a defence in the departmental inquiry, as during departmental inquiry, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the departmental inquiry be initiated against the petitioner and brought to its logical end, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶25

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶26

September 23, 2025 Jitendra/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sonali Majumdar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sonali Majumdar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amrita Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar and 29 Others vs State Election Commission U.P., and 7 Others

Smt Kalpana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Upendra Kumar Rajam vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Shashi Bala vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zaki Tariq and 17 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others