LUCKNOW: Quashing the suspension of a government primary school teacher, the Allahabad High Court observed that merely bringing alleged wrongdoing, embezzlement or any matter affecting public interest to light cannot be construed as misconduct.
The teacher had been suspended over social media posts allegedly highlighting the misdeeds of a BJP functionary.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan allowed a writ petition filed by Pradeep Pratap Singh, an assistant teacher posted at Primary School, Bhadana-II, in Firozabad, challenging his suspension by the district basic education officer (BSA).
According to the petitioner, the only allegation against him was that he had posted content on social media concerning Uday Pratap Singh, who was identified as the BJP's Firozabad district president.
He submitted that although the district basic education officer had directed him to delete the posts, he refused to do so, following which the BSA issued a suspension order on July 4, 2026.
The petitioner alleged that the suspension order had been issued at the behest of the BJP district president.
He further contended that his social media posts had been treated as misconduct despite his having submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice issued by the authorities.
According to him, the suspension order reflected a lack of application of mind and was therefore arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
After hearing both sides, the court noted that the suspension was based on allegations that the petitioner had posted comments on social media highlighting the alleged misdeeds of the BJP district president, which the authorities had treated as misconduct.
Examining the issue, the court observed, "Prima facie, this court is of the opinion that merely bringing an alleged act of wrongdoing, embezzlement, or any matter affecting public interest by a citizen to light, in exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, cannot, by itself, be construed as misconduct so as to warrant disciplinary action, unless such expression is shown to be prohibited by law or violative of any applicable service rule."
In view of this finding, the court held that the suspension order could not be sustained. It accordingly quashed the order and allowed the writ petition in its judgment dated July 29.