Anand Mohan Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer, District Balrampur.

¶12

Notice to opposite party no.8 is hereby dispensed with.

¶13

3.. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for challenging the order of suspension dated 19.02.2026.

¶14

The contention put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is regularly appointed Assistant Teacher of Primary School, Kalandarpur, Block & District Balrampur and after his appointment he kept on working, on the best satisfaction of his superiors and the past service period of the petitioner is unblemished. He next added that the order dated 19.02.2026, has been passed, under anonymity. He also submits that the petitioner was not assigned any duty whereas the petitioner has been told to assist the work of the SIR.

¶15

Adding his argument, he submits that the nature of the charges are not such, which will warrant the major punishment and therefore, submission is that the order of suspension is unsustainable.

¶16

On the other hand, Shri Tripathi has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the petitioner has defied the order passed by the Superior

¶17

WRIA No. 2344 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

authorities and thus, he has been suspended and inquiry has been contemplated.

¶20

Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner who has been assigned the duty for assisting the BLO in S.I.R. has been suspended, because of the alleged lackness in the duty. In fact the nature of charges are not such, which may warrant major punishment and further no fruitful purpose would be sub-served if the teacher is suspended as the teaching work shall be affected.

¶21

In this view of the matter, it requires thorough consideration.

¶22

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the petitioner within a week, thereafter.

¶23

10. List thereafter.

¶24

Until further orders, order of suspension dated 19.02.2026, passed by Basic Education Officer, Balrampur, shall remain stayed. The Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the inquiry and may conclude the same within three months.

¶25

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶26

March 11, 2026

¶27

Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand Mohan Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Mohan Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 7 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

Similar cases

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Shukla and 3 Others vs Vice Chancellor University of Lko and Another

Prem Prakash Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Shivansh Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar and 35 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 4 Others

Radhey Shyam Dwivedi @ Radhey Shyam Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others

Gaurav Agnihotri vs Idbi Bank Limited Thru. Managing Director and CEO Mumbai and 2 Others