The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.27167 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking to declare and set aside the impugned suspension order vide reference No.HPS/HR/2 5-26 /46 dated O4.O8.2O25, issued by respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India' 2 Hcarcl Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Rahul Kaldharkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos 2 and 3'

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) in the rcspondent School on 12.06.1995, and his services were conhrmed on 72"06.199A. Thereafter, in addition to the said post, the petitioner was associated with the National Cadre Corps (NCC) since 2O06 as a Care Taker, and was subsequently, promoted to the rank of Chicf Oflrcer in the year 2024, by the Director General of NCC, New De1hi. As such, the petitioner has an unblemished-sei-vice record of more { than three decades. However, despite the same, he was issued with a Ii 2 PK, J V P.No.27167 of 2025 show-cause notice dated 23.07.2025, calling for his e> clanation as to why action shall not be taken against him' in prl suance of the complaint supposedly made against the petitioner b1 :he students of inappropriate 8E, BG and 8H, alleging his teaching inability ar < behavior in the classroom. However, in response to he said notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation I denying thc allegations, and specihcally seeking th' complaint, the relevant Rules of the respondent Sch<'r disciplinary enquiries. However, none of the said c furnished to the petitioner, thereby, depriving hirc opportunity to dcfend himself. It was further submtt the petitioner's categorical explanation, respondent \ the present suspension order vide impugned letter drl stating that the petitioner's explanation was Ll unsatisfactory, and observed that a prima facie cast against the petitioner to initiate disciplinary procec( Disciplinary arrd Appeal Rules for Employees o.f HeS n 25.07.2025, copies of the 1 governing the )cuments were of a valuable ed that despite o.2 has passed ed 04.08.2025, 'adequate was made out ings under the 2002 (for short, - ' lt'' 'the HPS Rules').

4. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the r:: Ltire exercise of illegally placing the petitioner under suspension \ rasi :arried out in a completely biased and hasty manner, even without fr' I nishing him the 3 PK, J w.P.No.27t67 of 2O25 copies of the compliant and other relevant documents or affording him a fair opportunity to substantiate his case, thereby, violating every possible fundamental right available to the petitioner, in gross violation of Rule 6 of the HPS Rules, which mandates application of mind and strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that even if the alleged complaints were to be accepted as it is on the face of record, it would not disclose any act of grave misconduct, warranting the harsh punishment of suspension. As such, the impugned order is capricious, violative of principles of natural justice, and suffers from proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned suspension order dated 04.08.2025 is liable to be set aside.

5. [t was further submitted that on earlier occasions, on OI.O4.2O25. 19.04.2025 arrd 24.06.2025, on similar and routine allegations, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner, but they were subsequently either closed or withdrawn with a warning of counseling. As such, it is ctear that in a short span of less than four months, these complaints were given againg! th{e petitioner solely with an ulterior motive of victimizing such a senior faculty member. It was further submitted that though the impugned suspension order dated O4.O8.2O25 pertains only to the post of TGT (Hind), the respondents I I 4 PK, J t .P.No.27167 of 2025 are illegally and in a high-handed manner intt:r I petitioner's statutory r61s 25 Chiel Officer of NCC IT that the petitioner 11,as sent an e-mail dated 0 1 09 2t) in view of his suspension, the School had nominated as the in-charge Officer of the NCC, and vide anotlt O2.Og.2025, the pctitioncr was instructed to ha-ndor t the said post to Mr. Chetan by ), l 'O9 '2025' which i arbitrary, mata fde, and suffcrs from lack of jurisdic I learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allou' t petition by setting aside the impugned suspensrc O4.O8.2O25 and thc consequential e-mails dated ( :ring with tl-re rvas submitte d 15, stating that rne Mr. Chetan :r e-mail dated - the charge of ; highly illegal, on. Therefore, re present writ r order dated

1.09.2025 and o2.o9.2025 6,ontheotherhand,learnedStandingCounseltL,pear.ingfortl]e respondents submitted that the petitioner was appoir l:d as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi), and is due to retire from scr vice in the year 2026. However, the petitioner is bereft of a clean ar d unblemished servlce record, as several complaints were recei,a d against the s,udcnts, more petitioner over the particularly, during 1997, 2015, 2Ol9 and 2024 1 was submitted the petitioner was issued 'r th show-cause admitting the misconduct and was later Years lrom Parents and that on every occaslon, notices, leading to his .,*! " 5 PK, J W.P.No.27167 of 2025 counseled or warned. However, despite repeated opportunities to correct his conduct, there was no progress. It was further submitted that during Lhe year 2025 alone, multiple complaints were received against the petitioner from the students and parents regarding his conduct in class, ald though he was found to have committed the said acts, the school administration has taken a lenient view and cautioned the petitioner not to repeat such acts. However, yet again, the petitioner continued to act in ways unbecoming of a teacher. .

7. It was further submitted that as many as (28) students of Classes 8tr,8G and 8H submitted their written complaint to the Middle School Coordinator on ll.OT.2O2S, alleging that the petitioner does not teach properly, scolds students for coming late, calls them dumb, makes personal remarks and gives them nicknames, and discriminates between boys and girls. As such, based on the said complaint, a show-cause notice dated 23.O2.2025 was issued, along with a copy of the complaint, calling for his explanhtion as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. In response, the peririoner submirled his detailed .*pturedl} on 25.O7.2025. However, since the said explanation was found unsatisfactory, respondent No.2, being the competent disciplinary authority, is fully justified in placrng the petitioner under suspension vide impugrred s 6 PK, J L P.No.27167 of 2025 proceedings dated O4.08.2O25. Thereafter, an Enqrl ry Offlcer was appointed in accordance with the HPS Rules. Howevr r the petitioner refused to appea-r before the enquiry ofhcer and refusr:r to receive the notices. It was further submitted that the petitioner r,r,as

8. opportunity at every stage to defcnd himself lr rfforded ample rt instead of participating in the enquiry proceedings, he had irr oked the writ jurisdiction of this Court without first availing the statr tory remedy of appeal available under the HPS Rules, with the sr; : intention of obstructing the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. It was also submitted that the HPS Society functions as a 1)l ivate unaided educational institution and is not State or public autli rrity amenable to writ jurisdiction. As such, on these grounds alone, I re present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.

9. This Court has taken note of the rival submissi( I s/ contentions urged by learned counsel for the respective parties.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the 93rsd| this t apposite to address the preliminary objection -i tourt deems it ised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of tlL writ petition against the respondent School. 7 7 PK, J W.P.No.27167 of 2025

11. This Court, in W.P.No. 13828 of 2023 wd,e order dated O3.O5.2O24, has already held that the respondent School is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "15. Having regard to the nval contentions and the materia_l on record, on the issue of maintainability of writ petition, this Court hnds that the question as to whether t]1e respondents No.2 and 3 are the instrumentality of the State has already been considered by the co ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Diddi Rambabu (cited supra) ald since the said judgment has become hnal, this Court is not inclined to go into the arguments submitted by the petitioner with regard to the sarne. The said arguments aJe therefore rejected."

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent School preferred W.A.No.71l of 2024 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.06.2024, afhrming the view taken by the learned Single Judge and rejected the contention of the respondents as to the very maintainability of the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "8. As far as the marntainability of the writ petition against the appellant-school is concerned, 5sysaal i'f,1;vidua-1s have fiied writ petitions against rhe appellanlasdtiiol and they were entertained and the appellant-school has implemented the order passed by this Court. We were a_lso informed that Service Rules were a-lso framed at the instance of directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the contention of t.l.e appellants that it is not a State, is to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected." PK, J | '. P.No.27167 of 2025

13. In view of the above, it is now well-settled thrLr a rvrit petition against the respondent School is maintainable undcr 1aw. As such, the objection raised by the respondents with regard t ) maintainability of writ petition is hereby rejected.

14. Coming to the merits of the case, the petitione r while working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi), was initialil issued 'a'ith a show-cause notice dated 23.07.2025, ald was subs: luently, placed under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated l

1.08.2025, and an enquiry officer was appointed on O1.O9.2O25. Tt e basis for the impugned suspension is the complaint lodged agains , the petitioner by the (28) students of Classes 8E, 8G and 8H, dar :d 71.O7 .2025. The following is al excerpt of the said complaint. " 1. Teaching: Sahu sir.does not teach anything in class.Out of thc . of L-l we have in a week, 3 of them are wasted on the same notes every day even though there is no 'r given. In the 4tJl class if any'thing happens like talk r sir enters the class or if anyone comes a little late to from lunch, he wastes the entire class. qtx- scot( Whenever he starts a new chapter all sirdo6s is ree nothing e1se, he does not explain the chapter proper r classes hecking :w work g before he class ing us. I it and

2. Insulting students: If we ask sir to expiain the chapter again becausc r understand he wili start insulting us safng that ur dumb to understand and most of the students are s him so whenever he asks who al1 did not under:,I e didn't are too ;ared of rnd the 7 9 PK, J W.P.No.27167 of 2O25 "o.tti.rr-le chapter, only a few people raise their hands and sir starts the ones who raised their hands by saying that when IcJil; else is able to understand why aren't we, then he """*"""" saying that he knows the reason why we *orria Jia., i ,t a"."tand and he says that we didn't understand U.""""" we are too dumb and then he would continue to talk about how our parents don't care about us'Sir also does not r" ty or. "itr.l names, he calls us by the nickname he g".r" ,".- He also makes jokes by insu-lting the boys He "uit !l"o-rk"" racist jokes which with which people aren't comfortable. This is *re problem faced by girls other tl.an the ones listed above: Sir makes the girls sit in front of him during class and all sir a""" i" ,"ff. to !rls. The girls have a complaint saying that sir is biased.When sir makes jokes on boys or in genera-l any i"f.* fr" looks around to see if any gtrls are laughing' If they '*"-r", laughing, he asks them why they are not laughing and continues to talk to giris' This is what sir does to boys during class: If anv sirl comes a little late to class and all the places are ;.;"'dy" occupied,he makes rar-rd om boys stand up ald do*r, on the floor and makes the gi sit in -J""" ttr"- "it tt" to* vacant place. If we talk and sir gives us ,tl.ri"h-"tt,,*. accept it as it is our fault but most of ttre ii-.,"it makes us sii on the floor even if lhere is no mistake done bY us."

15. From a bare reading of the above complaint' it is clear that the allegations, rigarding the petitioner's teaching - and classroom behaviour, are serious in nature- The petitioner, being a teacher, is expected to maintain high standards of disciplirye-and proper conduct in the classroom. Therefore, this Court is of the view that unless a detailed enquiry is conducted, the truth or otherwise of the said 10 PK, J 1 '.P.No.27167 of 2025 allegations cannot be elicited. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

16. Further, it is well-settled law that an order of str rpension is only an administrative measure to facilitate a fair enquiq' into the alleged misconduct. Unless such an order is shown to bc 'itiatcd by mala fides or in gross violation of the statutory pr ) 'isions, Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with such order. '[ ris position has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in t|niot oJ India and another u. Ashok Kutnar Aggaruall, wherein, it r as observed as follows: "26. Tt€ scope of interference by the Court with tlr suspension has been examined by the Court in a largt cases, particularly in Slote of M.P. v. Shardul Singh lll) 1O8l , P- y. S,iniuaso Sastry v- Comptroller & Artdit [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23, ES1v. ?. Abdul Razak [(1996) 4 SCC 708 : 1996 SCC (l t Kusheshutar Dubeg v- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [(1988) 'f 1988 SCC (L&S) 95Ol , Delhi Cloth & Ge4eral Mills Ltrl Blrcrn [AIR 1960 SC 806] , U.P RajAa Krishi UtP( ( Partshad v. Sanjiu Rajan 11993 Supp (3) SCC 483 : (L&S) 67 : (1993) 25 ATC 7641 , State of Rojosth-a.n v: I [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (l-&s) 1455] , Prohibitior Deptt. v. L. Siniua.san [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC ( (1996) 33 ATC 7451 ar.d. Allahabad Bankv. Deepak kt llt997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCc (L&S) 8971 w[grein t 'tll<es observed that even if a criminal trial or enqt'rird il is ordinaitg not open to the court to interfere suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the authority who can always review its order of suspensil inherent power conferred upon them by the provisiorLr 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exerci: po\,r,er, the authority can consider the case of aI e.r r order of rumbcr of /0) 1 scc r General TC 64sl , s) 10611 , icc 319 : v. Kushal qn Maftdi 994 SCC .K. Meena ord Excise ,&S) 686 : nar Bhola has been long time, 'r case of rompetent i being an of Article ng such a ployee for ' (2013) 16 SCC 147 11 PK, J W.P-No.27167 of 2O25 revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the emploAee concented. Where the charges are baseless, mala hde or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out ofjob, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been ard it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, t}Ie court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial cannot be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the employee should or should not continue in his ofhce during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question.

27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers ofjudicial review." I

17. Admittedly, in the instart case, no such inhrmity 1S demonstrated, warranting interference with the impugned suspension order. (

18. In view of the above and given that the gravity of allegations against the petitioner is serious, this Court is not inclined to interfere 1-2 PK, J v .P.No.27167 of 2025 with the impugned suspension order dated 04.08.2I 25. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingiy, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in ti- is writ petition, shall stald closed. No costs. $P/ t\n A - ,. PONNA KRISHNA S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I lsecrtou oFFlcER \ One CC to SRI RAHUL KANDHARKAR, Advocate [OFl' C] One CC to SRI A.P- SURESH RAM, SC FOR EDUCATI )N TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES-.l,HighCourtforthr:StateofTelangana Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 3 4 PVL GJP \ s HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.27167 of 2025 ,.,;t.....',,,'. ' f 6 i.:. i:i ),1 \, -.. ..4' 'r .': ',.- ,;'F' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .< .6 Y