Allahabad High Court
Ram Autar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171388 Judgment reserved on 21.08.2023 Judgement delivered on 25.08.2023 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11603 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Autar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent no.1 and 2 as well as Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri H.P. Shahi, who appears for the third respondent, Committee of Management.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioner is that the third respondent, Sri Sarvajanik Inter College, Iradat Nagar, Agra is a duly recognized institution governed under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
As per the pleadings, the writ petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer on 11.02.2006 through a recruitment exercise undertaken by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
According to the writ petitioner, one Sri Ashok Gupta, who was the Principal of the third respondent institution superannuated on 30.06.2012 and the writ petitioner being the senior most lecturer of the institution besides being eligible and qualified in all respects was made an Adhoc Principal on 01.07.2012, approval whereof was accorded by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra on 02.04.2013. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that one Sri Chote Lal Sharma took the charge of the Manager of the institution in question in the year, 2017 and he along with Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey, his son, who was working as an Assistant Teacher on adhoc basis in the institution started interfering in the functioning of the writ petitioner as an adhoc Principal. It is further alleged that the appointment of Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey as an Assistant Teacher on adhoc basis was de-horse the Rules, so his services were not regularized, but he was illegally made entitled to continuance in service and has been extended salary from the State Exchequer. In paragraph no.8, an allegation has been levelled that Sri Chote Lal Sharma along with his son Anoop Kumar Dubey interfered in the examination of High School Examination and Intermediate Board Examination, 2022, while planting the solvers against the students for solving their answers. The writ petitioner claims to have made a complaint. In pursuance thereof, orders were passed at the end of Educational Authorities seeking to make an inquiry and also restraining Sri Chote Lal Sharma and his son Anoop Kumar Dubey.
In paragraph nos.9 and 10, it is further asserted that the property of the institution in question was also illegally alienated against the relevant statute governing the field and all sorts of hindrance, interference and obsticles were being made in the smooth functioning of the writ petitioner as Adhoc Principal. The writ petitioner further claims to be placed under suspension on 26.09.2022 and a charge sheet was also served upon him dated 26.09.2022 containing as many as seven charges.
Pleadings further reveal that the suspension of the writ petitioner was approved by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra on 24.11.2022, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ - A No. 20798 of 2022 (Ram Autar vs. State of U.P. and two others). The said writ petition came to be decided on 14.12.2022, wherein the following orders were passed :-
"1. Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Aditya Vikram for private respondent no.3 and, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Agra approving the suspension order dated 26.09.2022.
3. Petitioner who was appointed as Lecturer at Sri Sarvajanik Inter College Iradat Nagar, Agra and officiating as Principal of that institution was suspended by the respondent Committee of Management on 26.09.2022. A domestic inquiry was also initiated against him. Though the departmental inquiry has been concluded and the papers forwarded to the board through respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Agra on 06.12.2022, those proceedings are still pending. They may also take some further time to conclude.
4. In the meanwhile relying on the provisions of Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner would contend, the suspension order lapsed upon expiry of 60 days.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Committee of Management would contend, the lapse of suspension order would remain subject to the approval by the DIOS.
6. As to that approval, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner asserting that the DIOS has wholly exceeded the jurisdiction in examining the merits of the charges leveled against the jurisdiction and not making any consideration whether the charges leveled against the petitioner were so serious as may have warranted suspension or continued suspension pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings.
7. Further, it is the grievance of the petitioner, on the date 17.11.2012, a notice for hearing was issued by the DIOS Agra fixing the date 22.11.2022. On that date itself, for the first time, the petitioner was handed out 59 page/document containing adverse material being relied against the petitioner. His response to the same was also called. Time granted being inadequate, the petitioner sought adjournment. That was denied. Thus, infraction of rules of natural justice has also been pressed.
8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend, inasmuch as the domestic inquiry proceedings are over, no useful purpose may be served in considering the issue of suspension any further. The proceedings being pending before the Board may be expedited to bring an end to the dispute between the parties. Also, he would contend, the charges as leveled against the petitioner are serious. Hence the writ petition may not merit consideration by this Court.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it may be observed, this Court is regularly receiving such petitions either by the Committees of Management or the delinquent employees, asserting by way of main ground - the DIOS had exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the merits of the charges leveled against the delinquent employee.
10. Referring to Section 16-G(7) of the Act, as interpreted by this Court, amongst others, in Tej Narain Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (7) ADJ 108, it has been asserted, only prima facie consideration is to be made whether the charge levelled has any substance and whether there is any material available in support of such charge. The DIOS is not required to enter any disputed issue or to consider the possible outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. In that regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Tej Narain Singh (supra) has observed as below:
"14. We are of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising the power under Section 16-G(7), has only to examine on prima facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of ' the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal.
15. District Inspector of Schools was therefore not justified in recording conclusive findings on the charges, as has been done in the facts of this case vide order dated 24.4.2008, to the effect that the charges have not been made out. Such a conclusion would adversely effect the departmental enquiry which has been initiated against the Principal of the institution."
11. Thus, as to that principle in law, there is no quarrel between the parties in dispute, in the present case. In fact, there can be none.
12. Considered in that light, the order impugned in the present petition attempts to do that which is especially prohibited in law. The DIOS has chosen to not only consider the merit of the charges but also burdened the petitioner/delinquent employee to furnish his reply to 59 pages of adverse material that was part of the disciplinary proceedings. Such reply may never have been called and it fell completely outside the scope of the jurisdiction vested with the DIOS.
13. Third, in any case, wholly inadequate time was granted to the petitioner to furnish his reply. Five days to submit reply was too less.
14. Accordingly, in the first place, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is set aside and matter remitted to the respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Agra to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the observations made above. Such exercise may be completed within a period of one month from today. Both parties undertake to co-operate in those proceedings. All consequences arising from this order may be made available to the petitioner within a further period of one month.
15. Second, let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director (Secondary Education), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court. That authority may ensure adequate training/instruction to all field formations of the Secondary Education Department that the DIOS serving in the district or those likely to occupy those posts in future such that they may remain sensitized to the law noted above.
16. Repeated excess of jurisdiction indulged by such authorities causes distress both to the citizens and the litigating parties as also results in wholly avoidable litigation arriving at this Court. While the Court will remain ever equipped to handle such litigation, the administrative authorities are not absolved of their responsibilities to ensure due enforcement of law such that justice is first meted out to the citizens by those authorities. Only in case of valid dispute arising, the Court exists to resolve the same.
17. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of."
Post remand on 11.01.2023, the District Inspector of Schools, Agra proceeded to pass an order again approving the suspension of the writ petitioner.
The said order was also subject matter of challenge in Writ A No. 2500 of 2023 (Ram Autar vs. State of U.P. And 3 others), in which following orders were passed :-
"Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondent no.2 namely District Inspector of Schools, Agra dated 11.01.2023 by which the order of suspension passed against him by the Committee of Management was approved.
It is admitted between the parties that the aforesaid order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Law in this connection is well settled as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Singh Rajput vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 25th March, 2015 in Special Appeal No. 169 of 2015 reported in 2015(3) ADJ 654. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgent i.e. paragraph no.4 is reads as follows:-
"When the District Inspector of Schools considers whether to approve an order of suspension under Section 16-G of the Act, it is a well settled principle of law that an opportunity of being heard ought to be granted to the teacher, the Principal and the Management. Moreover, it is also a well settled principle of law that the District Inspector of Schools must pass a reasoned order indicating at least brief reasons for granting his approval or, as the case may be, disapproval to the suspension of a teacher (See: Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1765). In the present case, ex facie the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9 December 2014, which was in question before the learned Single Judge, did not indicate any reasons."
In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that since the order impugned has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 3/Committee of Management is directed to look into the matter and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially the law laid down by the Division of this Court in the case of Hari Singh Rajput (Supra), expeditiously and preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of."
Again on 09.05.2023, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra passed the order impugned approving the suspension of the writ petitioner.
Questioning the order dated 09.05.2023, passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a further relief for a mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to disturb the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as an Adhoc Principal of the institution in question and pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis.
This Court while entertaining the writ petition proceeded to pass the following orders on 26.07.2023 :-
"Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra, is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law, as this is the third consecutive order approving suspension as prior to it, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.09.2022 and the same was approved on 24.11.2022 and thereafter a charge sheet was also served upon the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 26.09.2022 and the approval order dated 24.11.2022 while filing Writ-A No.20798 of 2022 (Ram Autar Vs. State of U.P. and others) which came to be allowed on 14.12.2022 casting the strictures upon the second respondent, who incidentally has been has been impleaded in personal capacity as fourth respondent and the matter was set aside, remitted back to decide afresh in the wake of the fact that the approval order even in fact was occasioned with certain observations on merits. According to the writ petitioner thereafter on 11.01.2023 the second approval order was passed, which was again challenged in Writ-A No.2500 of 2023 (Ram Autar Vs. State of U.P.), which came to be decided on 28.02.2023 since the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice remitting the matter back, and now, the impugned order has been passed on 09.05.2023.
The allegations have been made in paragraphs-7, 8, 9 and 10 against the management and its office-bearers with regard to the fact that the suspension order has been passed just in order to cover their misdeeds, as the writ petitioner when pointed out the illegalities committed by the Committee of Management and its functionaries with regard to the interference in the daily functioning and also alienating the property in question against the relevant Act itself without taking any prior permission, the impugned actions have been taken against the writ petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has also made allegation of malafides against the fourth respondent as portrayed in paragraph-39 of the writ petition.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the third respondent, Committee of Management submits that he may be granted a week's time to file its response bringing on record the entire documents so as to enable the Court to decide the matter in the right perspective.
On the request of Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narain, put up this case as fresh on 07.08.2023. The counter affidavit may be filed by the 3rd of August, 2023 in order to enable the writ petitioner to file its response, if he so chooses.
Learned Standing Counsel shall also obtain its instructions by the next date and also file an affidavit in this regard taking out the stand of the State Government in the factual backdrop of the contingency wherein though the suspension order has been approved or disapproved, but a resolution of the Committee of Management has been passed for dispensing of the services of the teacher and the matter itself is pending consideration before the Board for exercising powers under Section 21 of the 1982 Act. The stand of the State Government with relation to any Government Order or any statutory backing should be placed before this Court as obviously the matter emanates for payment of salary or monetary benefits from the State Exchequer."
On 16.08.2023, the another order was passed by this Court :-
"Put up this case on 21.08.2023 as fresh by that time Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel shall file inquiry report by way of an affidavit.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record."
A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent under the signatures of Sri Chhotey Lal Sharma, who claims himself to be the Manager of the institution in question, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed, which is available on record.
A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed annexing therewith the copy of the inquiry report dated 20.10.2022, which has been taken on record.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has made a statement at Bar that he does not propose to file any response to the supplementary counter affidavit.
Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 and 2 has made a statement at Bar that he is possessed with complete instructions, which are self sufficient to decide the present writ petition and he does not propose to either seek time or to file any response in that regard.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the order of the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained even for a moment, particularly in view of the fact that the said order has been passed in a malafide manner. Elaborating the said submission, it is being sought to be argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Manager of the institution in question, namely, Chote Lal Sharma along with his son Anoop Kumar Dubey for one reason or the other are seeking to victimise the writ petitioner, as the very basis of the suspension itself proceeds on misconception and on the factors, which are totally irrelevant and out of context. He submits that when the writ petitioner, while performing the duties as an Adhoc Principal pointed out the irregularties committed by Sri Chote Lal Sharma and his son Anoop Kumar Dubey regarding planting of solvers in the examination to achieve best results, compromising on the merits as well as alienation of the property in question, then the writ petitioner has been slapped with the proceedings, which culminated into passing of the suspension order. He further submits that though as many as seven charges have been levelled in the charge sheet dated 26.09.2022 but the said charges had been tailored in such a manner so as to fix the writ petitioner and to dislodge him from the office, which he was holding, so as to enable them to commit the misdeeds in perpetuity.
Sri R.K. Ojha, has also invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.7, 8, 9 and 10, so as to point out that malafides have been alleged against the Committee of Management and in particular Sri Chote Lal Sharma and his son Anoop Kumar Dubey. He further submits that the order approving the suspension even does not consider the crucial fact that there has been delay in holding of the inquiry and further submission of the proposal regarding dispensation of his services and the copy of the inquiry report was also not served upon the writ petitioner, so as to enable him to submit his objection to the same.
Additionally, it is being sought to be argued that the inquiry report has been tailored in favour of the Committee of Management in question and one Sri Rajesh Kumar, who happens to be the Sanrakshak Sadasya, the Presenting Officer and who is also the close relative of Sri Chote Lal Sharma was planted just in order to twist and distort the inquiry that too in favour of the Committee of Mangement of the institution in question. He thus submits that the order in question be set aside.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the third respondent, Committee of Mangement on the other hand submits that though in paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10, allegations have been levelled against Sri Chote Lal Sharma, who happens to be the Manager and Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey his son regarding the alleged irregularities but they have not been impleaded in personal capacity as a party-respondent and thus the allegations could not have been levelled in that regard. He further submits that that District Inspector of Schools, Agra, while passing the order in question has adverted to all the fundamental and core issues and has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the charges prima facie are serious, so as to continue the writ petitioner under suspension and further according to him, there had been no delay in conducting the inquiry and further the inquiry report dated 25.10.2022/01.11.2022 was served upon the writ petitioner and a proposal had been transmitted to the Board in view of Section ? 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 for seeking approval. He thus submits that merely because Sri Rajesh Kumar happens to be the relative (though it is disputed) cannot be a factor to revoke the suspension, particularly when he at best was a Presenting Officer.
Sri Singh, further argued that at the stage of consideration for approval or disapproval of the suspension, merits of the allegations are not to be touched, however only a prima facie opinion is to be arrived at by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, so as to decide, as to whether the suspension, needs to be continued or not. He thus submits that the writ petition be dismissed.
Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel has adopted the submission of Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel, who appears for the third respondent, he submits that the order passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra is perfectly valid and in accordance with law and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in this regard.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
Undisputedly, the third respondent instution is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stands applicable.
It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.09.2022 on certain allegations and a charge sheet on the said date containing as many as seven charges were levelled. On 24.11.2022, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra proceeded to approve the suspension order, which led to filing of Writ A No. 20798 of 2022, which came to be allowed on the premise that besides other grounds the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra proceeded to examine the merits of the matter. Post remand on 11.01.2023, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra proceeded to approve the suspension order, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice, which even in fact was set aside by order dated 28.02.2023, as corrected on 13.03.2023 in Writ A No. 2500 of 2023 and now ultimately the order dated 09.05.2023 has been passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra.
This Court while determining the validity and the legality of an order of approval/disapproval of the suspension has to bear in mind that the merits of the matter is not to be touched with. The only consideration which should be weighed is the fact as to whether on prima facie basis the suspension needs to continue or not.
Here in the present case, this Court finds that a charge sheet has been issued levelling as many as seven charges and an inquiry report is already there holding the writ petitioner guilty. There happens to be a proposal of the Committee of Management for dispensation of the services, which has been transmitted to the Board for approval under Section ? 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.
The principle submission of learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner is that the order of suspension of the Committee of Management of the institution in question is malafide. Though, attention has been invited towards paragraph nos.7 to 10 of the writ petition, in order to buttress the said submission, but this Court cannot go into the issue of malafides, at the instance of the writ petitioner, particularly when none of the parties against whom malafide have been impleaded in personal capacity as a party respondents.
A pointed query was raised upon the counsel for the writ petitioner in order to even otherwise demonstrate as to whether the said ground was taken before the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra, to which the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards Annexure No.3, page 92, relevant extract at page page 99 of the paper book being the objection/representation/application of the writ petitioner dated 13.04.2023/27.042023. A close look of the same itself reveals that only vague allegations of malafides have been levelled without there being any specific allegations in that regard.
Thus, this Court in the present proceedings cannot go into the question of malafides at the instance of the writ petitioner.
Since, the writ petitioner did not specifically plead or argued malafides before the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, second respondent and that is why no such finding was recorded in the order impugned. Apart from the same, much emphasis has been laid upon by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that one Sri Rajesh Kumar, who is being alleged to be the relative of the Chote Lal Sharma, Manager of the institution in question that his presence in the inquiry proceedings vitiated the entire inquiry is concerned, the same is patently misconceived beside being out of context as in the order impugned there is a specific and categorical finding that Sri Rajesh Kumar was only a Presenting Officer and there was no evidence produced to the extent that he happens to be the son-in-law of Sri Chote Lal Sharma. Moreover, for a moment, it is presumed that Sri Rajesh Kumar happens to be the son-in-law of Sri Chote Lal Sharma, the Manager of the institution in question, who acted as a Presenting Officer in the inquiry, then too the same cannot be a ground to hold the suspension to be illegal in the present case, the Court is only confined to the merits and the demerits of the orders approving the suspension.
Sri R.K. Ojha, next submits that the writ petitioner has not been served with the inquiry report. Though in the order impugned of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, dated 09.05.2023, it has been recorded that the copy of the inquiry report was served upon the writ petitioner, but the said fact also is not germane to hold the suspension to be illegal, particularly when it might be a good ground available to the writ petitioner at a stage when ultimate punishment order is passed. So far as the issue with regard to the delay in seeking approval for suspension is concerned, the same has already been done discussed in detail by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra in the order impugned, as according to the finding returned therein, there was no delay in that regard. Even otherwise, the order of the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra, which is subject matter of the challenge in the present writ petition also records a finding that prima facie the charges are serious.
On a pointed query be made to Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner that how he is assailing the said finding, to which Sri Ojha, has argued that the charges are frivolous and the same had been levelled just in order to dislodge the writ petitioner in a malafide manner.
Considering the arguments of the rival parties as well as the facts and the circumstances of this case, I find myself unable to interfere with the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, dated 09.05.2023, particularly when the said order confirms to the requirement under law to be adhered too while approving the suspension.
Though, the fourth respondent, who happened to have passed the orders approving the suspension on three occasions has been made a party in private capacity but as per as the description insofar as the respondent is concerned, now, the then District Inspector of Schools, who was posted at Agra stands transferred to District Etawah and probably for the said reasons, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has not advanced any arguments as regards malafide against him.
Notably, this Court may hasten to add that the relationship of the writ petitioner with the Committee of Mangement in question, its employer is since subsisting and the resolution for dispensation of services is merely a proposal until and unless it is approved under Section- 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982. Thus, the writ petitioner in all eventualities is to be treated as a suspended employee.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any manifest illegality committed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Agra in passing the order dated 09.05.2023 approving the suspension of the writ petitioner.
No other point has been pressed by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023 S Rawat