V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar wherein resolution passed by Managing Committee of the institution placing the Petitioner under suspension on 15.02.2009 has been approved. Brief background of the case is that Smt. Rama Rathi, has been functioning as Principal of Arya Kanya Inter College, Sikandera Rao, District Mahamaya Nagar. Said institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The Managing Committee of the institution proceeded to place Smt. Rama Rathi, Respondent No. 3, under suspension on 15.02.2009, against which she represented the matter before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter fixed 24.02.2009 for hearing, but on that date no one appeared on behalf of the Committee of Management. Next date in the matter fixed was 27.02.2009, and thereafter, it was fixed for 04.03.2009. On 24.03.2009, District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass order. Said order dated 24.03.2009 was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23261 of 2009 by the Committee of Management and this Court on 06.05.2009 proceeded to pass following order: The fact of the matter is that in the present case on mere surmises and conjectures entire documentary evidence produced by the Management have not at all been considered and examined by the District Inspector of School, and the impugned order has been passed without giving thoughtful considerations, which were required to be done while proceeding to pass order either according approval or refusing to accord approval to the order of suspension passed by the Managing Committee against the Principal of the institution. For this purposes, the District Inspector of Schools was required to see as to whether prerequisite terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 16 -G(5)(a), (b), (c) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 were in existence or not, which impelled the Management to take decision for placing Smt. Rama Rathi under suspension. The District Inspector of Schools is not required to go into the merits of the charges, as merits of the charges are to be examined by the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, the District Inspector of Schools has not taken any serious exercise and has totally overstepped his jurisdiction by straight -away, as such order impugned is unsustainable. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.03.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar for being decided afresh by means of reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Manager of the Managing Committee and the Principal Smt. Rama Rathi, keeping in view the provisions of Section 16 -G(5)(a), (b), (c) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. In the present case, order of suspension was passed on 15.02.2009, more than 60 days period have expired, and as suspension has not yet been approved, as such same has become inoperative till fresh orders are passed on the same by the District Inspector of schools. In this background, Smt. Rama Rathi would be entitled to her full salary till fresh orders are passed by the District Inspector of Schools, either approving or disapproving the resolution, as the case may be.
(2.) THEREAFTER District Inspector of Schools on 02.06.2009 fixed 08.06.2009 and thereafter next date fixed was 15.06.2009 and thereafter next date fixed was 20.06.2009 and thereafter 23.06.2009 was the date fixed and thereafter District Inspector of Schools proceeded to note down the written submission filed on behalf of Management; written submission filed on behalf of Principal of the the institution and therein reply qua each charges has also been submitted in detail including the reply in respect of supplementary charge sheet dated 12.03.2009 and thereafter District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass order by recording finding that Principal has spent amount of Rs. 1,62,644.00 against rules and further proceeded to record finding that Petitioner has spent Rs. 1,87,745.50/ - against rules and further proceeded to record finding that Petitioner has committed various irregularities, in this background has approved the resolution of suspension. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI Vashistha Tiwari, contended with vehemence that in the present case District Inspector of Schools has transgressed its authority vested under Section 16 -G(7) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, by recording finding that charges have no substance without looking in to the papers submitted by the Committee of Management of the institution under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, as such order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.;