£N THB HIGH COURT OS .7UDICAIBRE AT _BaA_^l®_CC.Effi[aiTISGARH) w-•P._»3*__<^1^^200A PETITIONER •^w-^^ p<^'yjp^:'"' p.?" ds^ly RESPOKnBSTS Mrs^Sunita Saxena,; W/Ov Rcamod Kamar Shrivas-fcava,j fi9ed 35 years,i Occtipation — Service,! Fosted as Upper Divj.sloa Teacher, Mobanty Sicls HjLgher Secondary School,; 1'ilaknagar,; Bilsspur (C.G^) Vs. Shikshan Samiti (Kanaglng Ccnami-ttee),' Mohanty Girls Hi^ier Secondary Schciol, 'Ti-laknagar,) Bilaspur (C.G.) Through i-fcs Secre-tary Dis-fcrict. Education Officer (School Educatlon),i Bilaspur (C.G.) . .Principal,; S-lofaanty Oirls Higher Secondary School, Tilaknaear, Bilaspur (C.G.) W&IT PBIITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 O.F CONSTISUTION OF INDIA IOR_ISSUAHCE OEW.IT IN THE a'(7aE__OF_CE»SIOR&RI^MAHD&MUS PROHIBITIDM AM3 OTHER^ SyiZABI,E_i®ia'__OB._WRITS, DIKECIjnH O&^IRBCTIONS,. ORDSl OR pRBEKS. XI-HC-22- '3^'::;(iqRra, aifll'y'is, !««ti'wy *<WW ^fiffW ..^..-.£......^a^..e^ SH^T^I K-tW 311^1 sft^N^ ^ia an^rTOiRiT^ifsa ^OTfeSTWTOTtf •fttd-^R^R ^?3TiitFT 311^1 Shri Manendra Shrivasto|ya, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kajiv Shrivastava, \dprned counsel for the State/ Respondent No.2. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner was initially appoin &ivision teacher Mohanty 6irh Bilaspur, which is run and m The appointment of the peti^-ioner was in permanent and petitioner subfflits That the 1-ed on 16.08.1998, as Upper Higher Secondary Schoo! at anaged by Respondent No.l. a r|i substantive capacity in a r^gular scale of pay. The institution is an aided institul|ion-receivin9 9rant in aid and thesame is governed by thejProvince of Madhay Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansth^t (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon ke Vetano K4 Sandaya') Adhiniyam, 1978. The petitionsr wos continuin]g in service all along during ·the.se years but no complain^ was ever made against her work. Shri Manendra Shriva^tava further submitted that 1-he post occupied by the peti+ioner is one against which the ^ront in aid is admissible and therefore, the petitioner is a [-^^fia^ XI-HC-22 311^1 W r<S-i\<h 3SSS ^i^n^ yiea Kii-^r ^?^ty^^^^~ 'rsi ^l-siw'y, E?Ti)u'l<», i<iai*i'i< '^a^\ WTOIT«)*<|ch.u^:s:.... SfSill ^•WWdiW C?0 1 teacher. On certain chaijges based on baselsss complaint against the petitwr|er the impugned order of suspension was passed. The al|legations made against the petitioner are wiid, yague a^d unspecific. After the order of suspension was pa^sed, the petitioner was entitled to gst the subsiste|ice allowance. However, w.e.f. 01.05.2000 no subsisten^ce allowance has been paid to the petitioner till date. Th^e char9e sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02^6.2000. The petitioner submitted her representatic^n. For payment of sut^sistence aflowance the p^titioner- repeatedly made severai representations. Ultirfsately tx letter (Annexure P-22) was issued from the| office of the District Educoition Offjcer on 19.12.2p00, clearly stating that the petitioner is entitled ^o get the isubsistence aliowance, which is not bejng paid to her. Shri Shrivdstavo iearned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the n<(n-poiyment of subsistence on false, pretext and continu^nce of suspension after a p-eriod of 90 days without the t»pprovalof the competent authority is arbitrary and ille^al. . wraferih wrof ^ fs^t^RSR ^73tpOT3II^I r..^i t". [-^•^^ XI-HC-22 'S^'^fTWvPi, e>-d1ti<l<»,'I«dW'i< wwirgiww ..l'J..:.?:..u<'.-.^3-±l.§-<:"aL^ -SM SII^I^iT h-\ sn^r Sft^fc^ ^M^ .a;?. •••-i^iS-i ;? ji^.^?^N?~^^ ,'S!°S6'3?SS®». sn^srTSiiw^ifeT G) Shri Rajiv the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 has filed this petition on the incorrect facts. The Upper Division teacher was ir activities and committed negli to her. After receiving verification of the saine th' necessary to place the petition order of suspension was ii competent authority for its a| authority after conducting ai which the petitioner was being heard also confirm the o lonler Having considered the fo the case and the moiterial petition is disposed of with petitioner be 9'iven subsistenc^ on receipt ^f the copy of thi which is pending be expedited. 4be appointed forthwith and ^T^<vf^'f TTP^f ^t fe^ ^f^$l^ .^railitpTsn^i Shrivasttiva, learned counsel for sul^mits thdt the petifioner Uasis on misconceiyed and pg'titioi|ier who was working as irfdulged in certain illegal lifeence in dutjes assigned fhe complaints and on respondents found it •ior^er under suspension. The mmejliately forwarded to the (p()rovaland the competent full-fledged enquiry in gr^nted an opportunity of •der of suspension. ;ts and circumstancesof ^vailabie on record, the the direction that the allowance within 10 days i^s order and the enquiry The enquiry officer shall •tjhe enquir'y officer shall SS u [•fft^^g^ XI-HC-22 ~Sv! -iwict*), g'al'M'Ko, 'fsRTOy w*ir)ra>ww _.....'^£.B-^1^^ 3:(I^ITT fewsn^i g^w^ifeg ^ 3lI^?TTOIWllft^ ^~) proceed with the enquiry and as possible preferablywithin c|onclude the Same as early ifwo months. With the above obserji'ations, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy of the 4rcler be supplied as per rules- ' Sd/- Fakhruddin ; Judge <Bl<l[i-l<Ill 'Wraf 4 fs<S TfSR5R ^i'dll-dl 3S^{ •\ 'in :-\- v^ v^s{