Chief Education Officer must decide suspension approval within four weeks of receiving complete documents.

The petitioner, Committee of Management of Rashtriya Inter College Rohalki, suspended respondent No. 5, the Principal, and respondent No. 6, a Junior Assistant, through separate orders dated 1 April 2026.

The petitioner forwarded the papers relating to respondent No. 5’s suspension to the District Education Officer on 10 April 2026, seeking approval/disapproval of the suspension.

Subsequently, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, by order dated 30 May 2026, directed the Block Education Officer, Roorkee, to conduct an enquiry into respondent No. 5’s suspension.

No final decision had been taken regarding respondent No. 5’s suspension when the writ petition was heard.

In separate proceedings, respondent No. 6 challenged his suspension, and the suspension order was stayed by the High Court on 19 August 2026; accordingly, the petitioner did not press the present petition insofar as respondent No. 6 was concerned.

Whether the Chief Education Officer was required to take a decision on the approval or disapproval of respondent No. 5’s suspension on the basis of the documents forwarded by the petitioner-Committee of Management.

Whether the Court should prescribe a time-bound direction for deciding the matter relating to respondent No. 5’s suspension.

Whether any relief was required in relation to respondent No. 6 after the suspension order against him had been stayed in separate proceedings.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent statutory or administrative authority must consider and decide a pending request concerning approval or disapproval of an employee’s suspension within a reasonable and court-prescribed period.

The Court did not cite or rely upon any specific statutory provision, precedent, or independent legal doctrine in the judgment.

It also accepted the procedural consequence that, once respondent No. 6’s suspension had been stayed in separate proceedings, the petitioner could decline to press the present petition concerning him and reserve other appropriate remedies.

The Court noted that the petitioner had forwarded the relevant papers concerning respondent No. 5’s suspension on 10 April 2026, but the Chief Education Officer had not yet taken a decision and had instead directed an enquiry through the Block Education Officer.

Since the State expressed no objection to the Chief Education Officer deciding the approval request within a time fixed by the Court, the Court directed the authority to determine the matter on the basis of the complete set of documents forwarded by the petitioner.

With respect to respondent No. 6, the Court recorded that the suspension had already been stayed in separate proceedings and accepted the petitioner’s decision not to press the claim in that regard.

The petitioner did not press the petition concerning respondent No. 6 and was permitted to avail other appropriate remedies.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.