WPSS/1860/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2970 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPSS No.1860 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Gulgani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

5. The gravamen of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier suspended vide order dated 28.09.2022, passed by District Education Officer (Elementary), Udham Singh Nagar, on the self same charge that she has passed Prathma, Madhyama and Uttama from Hindi Sahtiya Samelan, which is not a recognized qualification.

6. Feeling aggrieved by that suspension order dated 28.09.2022, petitioner moved this Court by filing a WPSS No.2056 of 2022 and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 allowed the writ petition and suspension order dated 28.09.2022 was quashed and now on the same charges, the petitioner has again being placed under suspension vide impugned order.

7. I have gone through the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 as well as order, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure no.9 to the writ petition) and I am quite surprise that on similar set of charges how the petitioner can again be placed under suspension. This appears to be nothing but a kind of non application of mind, on the part of respondent no.3- District Education Officer (Elementary), Udham Singh Nagar Nagar and is sheer harassment of the

petitioner.

8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State submits that however, the Department was given liberty to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner in respect of charge of lack of basic educational qualification.

9. Learned State counsel also admitted that on the self same charges, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which is quite obvious and reflected from the impugned order dated 12.09.2023.

10. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted six weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

11. Further two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

12. List this case on 12.12.2023.

13. In the meantime, the impugned suspension order dated 12.09.2023 shall remain stayed, however, the disciplinary proceedings may proceed as directed by this Court.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.10.2023 SK