- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. 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 Manage ment, by an order dated 13. 11. 2007, has issued an order suspending the peti tioner on a variety of charges. THE suspension order along with other documents was forwarded by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools for neces sary approval, as required under Section 16-G (7) of the Act. THE District Inspec tor 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 revoca tion 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. 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 others, 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. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that an opportunity of hearing was provided by the District Inspector of Schools to the petitioner inasmuch as a notice was issued to the petitioner and, in response to the said notice, the petitioner had filed a reply. Consequently it cannot 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 ac cordingly 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.
(3.) 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 submit ted his reply. Consequently it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. 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 another, 1988 UPLBEC-226.;