JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri J.N. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management, respondent No. 3. Since no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the initial stage itself.
2. The petitioner is functioning as the Principal of the Institution, which is recognised under the Intermediate Education Act. The Committee of Management, by an order dated 13.11.2007, has issued an order suspending the petitioner on a variety of charges. The suspension order along with other documents was forwarded by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval, as required under Section 16-G(7) of the Act. The District Inspector of Schools issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause and submit a reply. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges and prayed for the revocation of the suspension order. The District Inspector of Schools, by the impugned order dated 24.12.2007 has approved the suspension order. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 13.11.2007 and the order of approval passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.12.2007 has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools before approving the order of suspension. Further, the impugned order does not indicate any reasons for approving the suspension order. Consequently, the said order is against the settled principles of law as enunciated by this Court in Satya Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (3) E.S.C. 2137 as affirmed in part by the Division Bench in the same matter reported in 2006 (4) E.S.C. 2387.
4. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that an opportunity of hearing was provided by the District Inspector of Schools to the petitioner in as much as a notice was issued to the petitioner and, in response to the said notice, the petitioner had filed a reply. Consequently it can not be said that an opportunity of hearing was not provided. The learned Counsel further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools was satisfied with the suspension and accordingly approved the suspension order. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, reasons was not required to be specified by the District Inspector of Schools while approving the suspension order.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the direction of this Court in Satya Pal Singh (Supra) to the effect that an opportunity of hearing should be provided was in fact complied by the District Inspector of Schools before passing the impugned order. From a perusal of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, it is clear that a notice was issued to the petitioner and in response to that notice the petitioner had submitted his reply. Consequently it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner.
6. However, this Court in the case of Satya Pal Singh, as affirmed by the Division Bench (Supra) clearly held that the District Inspector of Schools was required to record reasons while approving or disapproving the suspension order under Clause (7) of Section 16-G of the Act. Similar view was also taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura, Ballia v. District Inspector of Schools Ballia and Anr. 1988 UPLBEC 226.
7. In Committee of Management Janta Inter College, Mau Aima, Allahabad and Anr. v. D.I.O.S. Allahabad and Anr. 2000 (4) ESC 2921 it was held that the statutory provisions of Section 16-G(7) of the Act required that the order of approval had to be passed in writing which made it implicit that the Inspector had to apply its mind and record reasons for the approval or disapproval of the suspension order. The Court held that the District Inspector of Schools was under a legal duty to pass a reasoned order under Clause (7) of Section 16-G of the Act.
8. In view of the consistent pronouncements of judgments on this issue, it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools was required to record its reasons for approval of the suspension order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools has not recorded any reasons for approving the suspension order. The impugned order does not indicate the objections raised by the petitioner for the revocation of the suspension order. Consequently, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.12.2007 can not be sustained and is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Since the period of two months has not elapsed, the suspension order remains in force. The District Inspector of Schools is required to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and is also required to record reasons for approval or disapproval of the suspension as the case may be. Parties are required to appear before the authority within two weeks from today and the District Inspector of Schools will pass the order within two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order after hearing the parties.