Maniram Rajpoot vs State Of U.P. And 3 Othrs.
2016 Latest Caselaw 187 ALL

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 187 ALL
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2016

Allahabad High Court

Maniram Rajpoot vs State Of U.P. And 3 Othrs. on 9 March, 2016

Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11093 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Maniram Rajpoot
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Othrs.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeepta Kumar Shahi,Birendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

The petitioner is a Assistant Teacher in a Senior Basic School. He has been placed under suspension on the ground that when he was Head Master in Junior Basic Schools Kamdauramaf, Block Karbai, under his supervision, a school building was constructed in the year 2004.

Now a complaint has been made that the said building is in a dilapidated condition. On the said complaint, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said building was constructed in the year 2004 and no complaint was received in respect of the quality of the construction and after more than ten years, merely on a complaint, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

It is further contended that the petitioner was suspended on 07.12.2015 and no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Aajai Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, JT 2015 (2) SC 487 wherein the Court has held that there should not be a prolonged suspension.

Matter needs consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no. 1 while Sri Pankaj Kumari Tyagi appears for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

As prayed by them, counter affidavits may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

List this case on 16.05.2016.

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that the disciplinary proceedings have not been stayed by this Court. The respondents may complete the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously.

Order Date :- 9.3.2016