After Suspension Order Is Quashed, Not Passing Formal Order Of Reinstatement Does Not Vitiate Fresh Suspension Order Issued By Management: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that after a suspension order is quashed, not passing a formal order of reinstatement would not vitiate a fresh suspension order issued by the management.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by a Principal (Petitioner) challenging her suspension under Section 16G(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (the Act). The Lucknow Bench upheld the validity of the suspension order issued after a previous suspension order had been quashed by the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed, “In the instant case, the violation, as alleged, is non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement. The learned counsel for the petitioner neither in his arguments nor in the petition has indicated anywhere as to the prejudice that may have been caused to him on account of non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement after his suspension order was quashed. In the absence thereto, merely because no formal order was issued prior to placing the petitioner under suspension, the same, in the opinion of the Court, will not vitiate the impugned suspension order as no prejudice has been caused to him.”
Advocate Sudeep Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Ashutosh Singh represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner was earlier suspended by the management of the institution, which was quashed by the High Court, with directions for the consequences to follow. However, a fresh suspension order was issued again by the competent authority under Section 16G(5)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing that her reinstatement had not occurred after the previous suspension was quashed, and that disciplinary proceedings required under Section 16G(5)(b) had not been initiated at the time of suspension.
The High Court clarified that an employer-employee relationship does not come to an end during the period of suspension.
Therefore, the Bench held, “Once the employer-employee relationship continues thus in terms of Section 16G(5) of the Act, 1921, which pertains to the suspension of the head of institution or teacher and the provision under which the petitioner has been suspended, the same categorically provides that it is the head of the institution or teacher who can be suspended by the management on the grounds as contemplated under the said section.”
The Court noted that the Petitioner in this case alleged non issuance of the formal order of reinstatement. It was clarified that non passing of a formal order of reinstatement could be seen in context of 'Useless Formality Theory.' “Merely because a formal order of reinstatement was not passed prior to the petitioner being placed under suspension, there has been no failure of justice and as such, this court refuses to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court held, “As the earlier suspension order of the petitioner had already been quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 and even if no formal order has been passed by the respondents reinstating the petitioner, the same would not take away the fact or the suspension order itself having been quashed and consequently the petitioner cannot be said to be a suspended employee on the date of passing of the fresh suspension order, in this case as on 09.11.2024 and thus in case no formal order was passed for the reinstatement of the petitioner the same would not vitiate the suspension order on the ground as urged by the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:78773)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey and Shreshth Srivastava
Respondents: Advocates Ashutosh Singh and Vijay Vikram
