- (1.) Heard Sri M.P. Rao for the petitioner as well as Sri V.K. Bajpai for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(3.) It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14-12-1867 (sic) in Primary School, Balsinghpur Pahla, District Sitapur and worked as such in different institutions. In December, 2000, an FIR was lodged, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered, which was numbered as case Crime No 222 of 2000 under Sections 498A/304B, IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Rampur Khurd, Sitapur. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur vide order dated 21-7-2001 where it has been stated that the petitioner was suspended on the ground of absence on 8-12-2000 from duty and also he was in jail from 8-1-2001 to 16-6-2001. It has also been provided in the order of suspension that during the period of suspension, the petitioner shall be allowed to payment of subsistence allowance and the period during which he remained in jail, the same will be deemed as presence before B.R.C. where he was directed to be attached during the period of suspension. It was also provided that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. On 17-4-2003, the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Sitapur, in Sessions' Trial No. 149 of 2001 (The State v. Nageshwar and others) convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide order dated 17-4-2003. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 974 of 2003 and the same was admitted and this Court, by means of order dated 13-6-2003, has been pleased to suspend the sentence as well as the fine imposed till the disposal of the appeal and further provided that the petitioner be released on bail after furnishing two sureties and a personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was released on bail and also submitted a representation before opposite party No. 3 for his reinstatement on 15-10-2003 and thereafter, a reminder on 9-9-2004 annexing therewith a copy of the order of this Court dated 13-6-2003 but no heed was paid on the said representation by the opposite parties and as such the petitioner filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing the order of suspension dated 21-7-2001 passed by the opposite party No. 2.;