- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 14-8-95 passed by the District Inspec tor of Schools, Mirzapur, Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) I heard Shri G. K. Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare for respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel also. The respondent No. 2 was function ing as ad hoc Principal of the Institution in question. He was placed under suspension by order dated 26-6-95 vide Annexure 1 to the petition and by another order passed on the same date, he was directed to hand over charge of the post of Principal to Hemdutt Tripathi vide Annexure 2 to the petition. The Manager of the institution informed the District Inspector of Schools about this suspension and by letter dated 5-7-95 he submitted the relevant documents with the letter to the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act. A true copy of the letter dated 5-7-91 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Subsequently by order dated 14-8-95 the District Inspector of Schools disap proved the suspension of respondent No. 2. Aggrieved this petition has been filed by the management.
(3.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and I have heard learned counsel, for parties. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14-8-95 shows that the District In spector of Schools has examined all the al legations against the petitioner and prima facie found that no material has been sub mitted by the petitioner in support of the allegation against respondent No. 2. The District Inspector of Schools has dealt with each of the charges and has recorded his finding there on. As regards charge No. 1 he has held that as regards, the allegation of submitting a false statement, the same was signed by the Manager also and hence the Principal alone cannot be blamed. As regards charge No. 2 he has observed that there is nothing to show that the Principal was guilty of insubordination in accepting certain funds. As regards, charge No. 3 he has observed that the cheques has to be signed by the Manager also and moreover it is not such a serious, charge. As regards charge Nos. 4 to 7, he has observed that no material has been submitted by the manage ment to justify these charges.;