SHIV SAGAR CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State- respondents as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for respondent no. 3.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 sworn by Block Education Officer Mithwal District Siddharthnagar, dtd. 24/2/2026, which is available on record. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner as per the instruction received from his client, submits that the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Junior Clerk/ Class-III employee in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharthnagar since 14/1/2021, he was placed under suspension on 24/11/2025 by the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharthnagar on the allegation that there happens to be two institutions, one namely Kalpa Devi Madhav Prasad Kanya Junior High School, Garhmer Post Methwal Sikari Bazar, Vikash Khand Lotan, Siddharthnagar and another Bal Govind Pandey Children Academy, Panani Post Sikari, Vikas Khand, Lotan, District Siddharthnagar, which had applied for recognition from the Basic Education Department. Allegation in the suspension order is that despite there being adverse report against the said institutions and there was no recommendation in that regard, the petitioner, who happened to be a Junior Clerk (Patal Sahyak), connived with the said institutions and others and got illegal recognition certificate and on the basis of the complaint, lodged by Shailesh Kumar, resident of village Siswa Bujurg, Post Semri Khankot, District Siddharthnagar, an order came to be passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharthnagar on 23/5/2025 for conduction of an inquiry by a committee, and post submission of the report on 15/9/2025, it was found that the said two institutions were not entitled to be accorded recognition in view of the poor infrastructure and failing to meet the specifications, and thus the petitioner was found to have committed misconduct and he was placed under suspension.