Allahabad HC Stays Suspension of Incharge Headmaster Accused of Allowing Islamic Prayers in School, Orders Enquiry in 15 Days

The Allahabad High Court kept a suspension order in abeyance and directed a departmental enquiry to conclude within 15 days, saying charges cannot be examined at the writ stage.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a writ petition filed by Mohd. Anzar Ahmed, a primary school teacher who served as Incharge Headmaster in Sambhal district, has kept his suspension order dated 10 May 2026 in abeyance until the completion of a departmental enquiry. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, sitting singly in Court No. 52, disposed of the petition on 7 September 2026 with a direction that the enquiry be brought to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 15 days. The court declined to examine the merits of the charges at the writ stage, holding that the petitioner's defence — centred on sanctioned medical leave and hospital admission — can be raised and tested in the departmental proceedings.

Suspension and the Charges Against the Petitioner

The District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal (respondent no. 4), passed the suspension order on 10 May 2026. The order was founded on allegations that, during the period the petitioner served as Incharge Headmaster, students at the school were performing Islamic prayers and wearing uniforms associated with a particular religious community.

Records placed before the court indicated that the petitioner was visible at the prayer services prior to 14 November 2025. On the strength of those records, a charge-sheet dated 3 September 2026 was served on the petitioner on 7 September 2026, the very day the matter was taken up for final disposal.

The Petitioner's Defence: Medical Leave and Hospital Admission

Counsel for the petitioner, Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, and Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, argued before the court that the petitioner had been on sanctioned medical leave during the relevant period, the particulars of which were set out in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The petitioner's case was that, because he was on approved leave and admitted to hospital for treatment, the alleged activities could not have occurred during his tenure as Incharge Headmaster.

The leave application and leave status had been annexed at page 53 of the writ petition. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was never present during the prayer services at which the impugned activities took place. It was also argued that even if the petitioner were presumed to have been the Incharge Headmaster at the relevant time, the charges were not of the nature that would warrant a major penalty, making the suspension order disproportionate and bad in law.

The Court's Reasoning for Not Adjudicating the Charges

Justice Chauhan did not go into the factual contest between the petitioner's medical-leave defence and the respondent's video or photographic records. The court held that the charges “cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the explanation and the documents relied upon by the petitioner can be raised as a defence in the departmental enquiry.”

The reasoning reflects a well-established principle in service-law writ petitions: where a departmental enquiry is pending or has been initiated, the High Court ordinarily refrains from adjudicating disputed facts on the basis of affidavits and annexures. The court observed that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to prove his innocence during the enquiry process.

The court noted the sequence of events leading to disposal. On 19 August 2026, the respondent-BSA had sought and been granted a week's time to obtain instructions. When the matter was listed again on 7 September 2026, counsel for the BSA reported that the charge-sheet had been served that very day. This contemporaneous service of the charge-sheet was the immediate procedural context in which the court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition rather than keep it pending.

Directions on Documents and Suspension

The court issued two concrete directions alongside the order of disposal. First, all relevant documents are to be provided to the petitioner within three days from 7 September 2026. This ensures that the petitioner can prepare his response to the charge-sheet without delay caused by non-supply of records.

Second, and centrally, the impugned suspension order dated 10 May 2026 shall remain in abeyance until the enquiry concludes. The court linked the fate of the suspension directly to the outcome of the departmental proceedings: the suspension “shall abide by the final outcome of the enquiry.” This means if the enquiry results in exoneration, the suspension lapses; if it results in a finding of guilt, the disciplinary authority will proceed accordingly.

Outcome

The writ petition — WRIT-A No. 12781 of 2026 — was disposed of on 7 September 2026 by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan. The suspension order dated 10 May 2026 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal, is kept in abeyance pending conclusion of the departmental enquiry. The enquiry is to be completed preferably within 15 days from 7 September 2026, strictly in accordance with law. All relevant documents must be supplied to the petitioner within three days from that date. The suspension will abide by the final outcome of the enquiry.