V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) Shri Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he be permitted to delete respondent No. 3 from the array of parties. He is permitted to do so during the course of the day. I have heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava and Shri R. D. Singh the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. K. Chand learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri V. K. Singh holding brief of Shri G. K. Singh appearing for respondent No. 2. Counsel for the parties have agreed that this matter can be disposed of finally at the admission stage without calling for any counter-affidavit. Therefore, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by Committee of Management, challenging the orders of the District Inspector of Schools passed on 29.8.2000 and 31.8.2000. Shri Subhash Chandra Dubey was working as officiating Principal in Intermediate College, Gorai, Post Gorai, Varanasi. Serious complaints of misappropriation of funds and irregularity as controller of examination were received. In preliminary inquiry, the allegations were found to be correct. An inquiry committee of three persons was constituted and he was suspended on 29.6.2000 and the papers were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval as provided by Section 16G (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in brief Act). The papers were received on 30.6.2000. But the District Inspector of Schools did not take action for sixty days, the statutory period provided by Section 16G (7). He did not make any inquiry from the petitioner. The papers remained pending for two months. No order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Sixty days from the date of suspension was completed on 28.8.2000. The District Inspector of Schools on 29.8.2000 passed the order that suspension order has automatically come to an end and he has directed the management to reinstate the respondent No. 2 as Principal of the institution and on 31.8.2000 attested his signatures.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the District Inspector of Schools without passing any order of approval or disapproval under Section 16G (7) could not direct the management to reinstate the respondent No. 2. He relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1995 (1) UPLBEC 460. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh holding brief of Shri G. K. Singh appearing for respondent No. 2 has urged that after the expiry of sixty days, the suspension order automatically came to an end and the order passed by District Inspector of Schools was justified. Shri K. K. Chand the learned standing counsel supported the impugned order.;