# C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College Lko & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13771 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-ram-bharose-maiku-lal-inter-college-lko-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52824
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

12 All. C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College Lko & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
235
(2025) 12 ILRA 235
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 13771 of 2025

C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College
Lko & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether disapproval of District Inspector of
Schools of the resolution of Committee of
Management for suspension of the services of
respondent no. 6 is sustainable in the eyes of
law?

Headnotes
A. Service Law
- U.P. Intermediate
Education Act 1921: Section 16(G)(5) -
Brief reasons must be recorded while
disapproving the suspension order, which
apparently is lacking in the present
matter. (Para 15)

(a) On examining the impugned order dated
06.10.2025 on law and facts, it emerges that
the DISs, after receiving the papers from the
petitioners,
concluded
it,
on
mainly
five
grounds. So far as
the provision for
constituting sub-committee is concerned,
that has been prescribed u/regulation 35,
which in fact regarding the enquiry and
not for passing the suspension order. (Para
16, 17)

(b) Ground no. 2, which reads that 'no
approved
chargesheet
was
served
upon
respondent no. 6' cannot be the zone of
consideration of approval or disapproval of the
suspension order, whereas, the DISs could
have
applied
his
mind
on
the
evidence/records sent by the Committee
of Management, u/Regulation 39 and the
provisions of section 16(G)(5) should have
strictly been followed. Therefore, the second
ground also goes against the mandate of the act
and regulations. (Para 18)

(c)
The
third
ground
states
that
the
chargesheet dated 10.01.2025, is not approved
by the Committee of Management,' whereas,
the DISs should have applied his mind on
the
material/evidence
regarding
the
suspension order and not the chargesheet.
(Para 19)

(d) The DISs, has said that since no evidence
was made available by the Committee of
Management for approval of the suspension
order, therefore, the conditions prescribed u/s
16(G)(5) are not fulfilled, thus, the suspension
order has been disapproved, whereas, Section
16(G)(5)
laid
the
first
ground
for
consideration regarding the nature of the
charges and there is not a single whisper
in the order dated 06.10.2025, to discuss
the seriousness of the charges, thus, there
seems to be the non-application of mind of the
DISs. (Para 20)

(e)
The
DISs
while
taking
decision
regarding approval or disapproval, on
suspension
order,
shall
record,
brief
reasons, but so far as the case in hand is
concerned that too is missing, as no
reason has been recorded, for disapproval of
the recommendation of the Committee of
Management, in the order impugned dated
06.10.2025. Consequently, the order dated
06.10.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(Para 21)

The matter is relegated back to the DISs to pass
a fresh order.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter
College, Kanpur & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
2018 (2) ADJ 840 (Para 6)

List of Acts
 U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921.

List of Keywords
 service, suspension, committee, management,
education, approval, disapproval.
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Vikas Singh, Mahendra
Bahadur Singh
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Hari Prasad Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel for the petitioners and the
counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6,
are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Mahendra Bahadur
Singh and Mr. Vikash Singh, learned
counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Hari
Prasad
Gupta,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 6, Mr. Brijendra Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

3. Since in the instant petition, the
pure legal question is involved, therefore,
the matter is being decided at the admission
stage. Notice to respondent no. 5 is hereby
dispensed with.

4. The present writ petition has been
filed assailing the order dated 06.10.2025,
by which the district Inspector of Schools
has
disapproved
the
resolution
of
Committee of Management for suspension
of the services of respondent no. 6.

5. The contention put forth by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
earlier, on two occasions also, the District
Inspector of Schools had disapproved the
suspension order and on the second time,
Writ A No. 10304 of 2025 was instituted,
challenging such an order of disapproval,
wherein, the Court has passed the order on
15.09.2025, which is quoted hereinunder:-

"1. Preliminary objection and
counter affidavit filed by Shri Hari Prashad
Gupta, Advocate on behalf of respondent
No.7 is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner states that he does not intend
to file any objections/reply to the same as
there is only a short question of law
involved in the matter.

3. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner prays for and is permitted to
delete respondents No.5 & 6 from the array
of the parties during the course of the day.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
respondents-State and Shri Hari Prashad
Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7.

5. With the consent of the parties,
the matter is being decided finally.

6. Under challenge is the order
dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is
Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the
suspension order of the respondent No.7
dated 30.12.2024 has been disapproved.

7. The short question of law as
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the District Inspector of
Schools while passing the order impugned
has also gone into the validity of the
charges as leveled against the respondent
No.7 and has held that said charges were
not proved.

8. Argument of the learned
cousnel for the petitioners is that power to
approve or disapprove an order of
suspension is vested in the District
Inspector of Schools under sub Section (7)
12 All. C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College Lko & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
237
of Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act, 1921'). This Court in the case of
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter
College, Kanpur & Anr vs State of U.P. &
Ors : [2018 (2) ADJ 840] after considering
the aforesaid power has held that the
D.I.O.S. has to examine the papers so
transmitted but would have no right to
address on the merits of the charges, but
has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to
whether charges have any substance.

9. The argument is that even
though the D.I.O.S. was fully empowered to
either approve or disapprove the order of
suspension that had been sent for his
approval by the petitioners but by no
stretch of imagination or any principle of
law, the D.I.O.S. could have gone into the
validity and veracity of the charges that
had been leveled against the respondent
No.7 and as such on this ground alone, the
impugned order merits to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, though
learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.7 does not dispute the aforesaid
proposition of law laid down by this Court
in the case of Committee of Management,
D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra) yet
says that once the order of suspension is
dated 30.12.2024 and a period of more
than 60 days have lapsed consequently the
said suspension order cannot be read
against the respondent No.7.

11.
Having
heard
learned
counsels for the parties and perused the
record, it emerges that the order of
suspension of respondent No.7 as sent for
approval
to
the
D.I.O.S.
has
been
disapproved vide order impugned dated
01.07.2025 by going into the veracity of the
charges.

12. This Court in the case of
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter
College, Kanpur (supra) has categorically
held that the D.I.O.S. while exercising the
powers under sub Section (7) of Section 16G of the Act, 1921 only acts in a
supervisory capacity and has to only see as
to prima facie the charges are having any
substance but he cannot go into veracity of
the said charges.

13. As already indicated above,
perusal of the order impugned would
indicate that the D.I.O.S. has gone into
veracity of the charges and thereafter
disapproved the suspension order which
order would clearly run against the
principles of the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Committee of
Management,
D.P.S.N.
Inter
College,
Kanpur (supra).

14. In view of the aforesaid, the
writ petition is allowed. Order impugned
dated 01.07.2025, a copy of which is
Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

15. The D.I.O.S. shall pass a
fresh order in accordance with law within a
period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that the petitioners shall
cooperate with the D.I.O.S. while he passes
the said order. In case of non cooperation,
the D.I.O.S. would be at liberty to issue a
notice to the petitioners indicating their
noncooperation and thereafter proceed in
accordance with law. "

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that on the last occasion also, the District
Inspector of Schools, vide impugned order
dated 1.7.2025, disapproved the order of
suspension, against the provisions of law,
therefore, this Court, while considering the
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ratio of judgment passed in the case of
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N.
Inter College, Kanpur & Anr vs State of
U.P. & Ors : [2018 (2) ADJ 840], had
directed to pass a fresh order, within the
period of two weeks and in-compliance of
the order aforesaid, the present impugned
order has been passed.

7. He submitted that the findings
which have been recorded, in point nos. 1
to 5, in the order dated 06.10.2025, is
apparent that there is no application of
mind by the District Inspector of Schools,
on the papers sent by the petitioners under
the provisions of Rule 39 of Chapter III of
the regulations made under the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act
1921(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1921')
and
the
said
findings
are
quoted
hereinunder in verbatim:-

"1- श्री रामचिंर के भवरुद्ध अनुशा नात्मक कायावाही
हेतु इण्टरमीभडएट भशक्षा अभधभनयम-1921 के अध्याय-तीन की
धारा-16-ि उप धारा-35 के तहत भक ी उप- भमभत का गठन
नहीं भकया गया।

2- प्रबिंधतिंत्र / प्रबिंधक / भचव द्वारा अनुमोभित
कोई आरोप पत्र भनििंभबत प्रधानाचाया श्री रामचिंर को नहीं उपिब्ध
कराया गया।

3- श्री भवभपन ाहू अध्यक्ष, िीपक अग्रवाि िस्य
एविं िुष्ट्यिंत यािव िस्य के हस्ताक्षर े जारी आरोप पन्त्र भिनािंक
10 जनवरी 2025, भनयुभक्त प्राभधकारी / प्रबिंधतिंत्र प्रबिंधक /
 भचव द्वारा अनुमोभित नहीं है।

4- प्रबिंधक / भचव श्री श्रीकािंत ाहू द्वारा अपने
भिभखत किन भिनािंक 25.09.2025 में भनििंबन आिेश के
 मिान में कहा गया है भक रामचिंर ने भवत्त भवहीन कक्षाओिं के शुल्क
का कोई िेखा-जोखा नहीं भिया। श्री रामचिंर कायावाहक प्रधानाचाया,
( म्प्रभत भनिभम्बत) त्तभमभत भवरोधी काया कर रहे हैं। श्री रामचिंर द्वारा
भविागीय आिेशों की अवहेिना, अभशष्टता, अवज्ञा अनाधीनता
अनुशा नहीनता एविं भवद्यािय की प्रबिंध भमभत के भवरुद्ध र्डयिंत्र
भकया जा रहा है भकन्तु पत्र भिनािंक 25.09.2025 के ाि पत्र में
वभिात आरोपों की पुभष्ट में कोई पुभष्टत ाक्ष्य िंिग्न नहीं भकये गये
हैं।

5- श्री रामचिंर ने अपने द्वारा प्रस्तुत पत्रों को िंिभिात
करते हुए अपने भिभखत किन भिनािंक 26.09.2025 में कहा है
भक 01. अप्रैि 2022 े भवद्यािय के कायावाहक प्रधानाचाया के
रूप में कायारत हैं, बार-बार अनुरोध के बावजूि प्रबिंधक महोिय
भवद्यािय के भवका एविं िात्रों के भहत में काया नहीं कर रहे हैं।
हाईस्कूि के कृभर् वगा के िात्रों के भिए कृभर् िूभम भचभन्हत नहीं की
जा रही है। भवद्यािय का िवन अत्यिंत जीिा-शीिा व जजार अवस्िा
में है भज े िात्रों एविं अन्य को िैव खतरा बना रहता है, भज की
 ूचना उनके द्वारा प्रबिंधक के ाि- ाि भशक्षा भविाग के उच्च
अभधकाररयों को िी िी गई है। भज े प्रबिंधक महोिय उन े
व्यभक्तगत रूप े नाराज हैं। प्रबिंधक महोिय उ े कभनष्ठ हायक
अध्यापक श्री अम्बर प्र ाि भतवारी, जोभक प्रबिंधक महोिय द्वारा
भकए जा रहे अभनयभमत कायों का मिान करते हैं, को येन-केन
प्रकारेि भवद्यािय का कायावाहक प्रधानाचाया का कायािार ौंपना
चाहते हैं।"

8. Referring the aforesaid grounds of
disapproval, he submitted that so far as
ground no. 1 is concerned, it is stated that
the
petitioners
have
been
failed
to
constitute
a
sub-committee
as
per
regulation 35 of the regulations made under
the Act 1921, whereas, there is no mandate
in regulation 35, to constitute a subcommittee, at the stage of passing the
suspension order.

9. He further submitted that ground
no. 2, is also apparent that the District
Inspector of Schools has taken into
consideration that 'the Committee of
Management, the petitioner no. 1, has
failed to provide the approved chargesheet
to the respondent no. 6', that too is not the
condition
precedent
for
passing
the
suspension order as per the mandate of the
Act
1921
read
with
provision
of
regulations.
12 All. C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College Lko & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
239

10. He argued that the conclusion
clause of the aforesaid order is also goes
against the provision of the Act, as it has
been said that 'there is no evidence
available to approve the suspension order',
wherein, the District Inspector of Schools
should have considered the nature of the
charges, as is mandated vide the provisions
of section 16(G)(5) of the Act 1921.

11. Concluding his arguments, he
submitted that the order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools is not only
against the direction of the judgment and
order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Writ A
No. 10304 of 2025, but that too is against
the provisions of the Act 1921 read with
the regulations. He submitted that the order
impugned is also against the settled
proposition of law, therefore, submission is
that the impugned order dated 06.10.2025
may be quashed.

12. Per contra, Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta,
learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has
vehemently
opposed
the
contentions
aforesaid and submitted that the ground for
disapproval has rightly been recorded by
the District Inspector of Schools. He
submitted that, in fact, the petitioner no. 2
has committed unlawful activity in the
College and when the voice has been raised
by
respondent
no.
6,
the
present
disciplinary proceedings has been instituted
against him. He also submitted that the
District Inspector of Schools has very well
considered the evidences which were made
available by the petitioners, therefore, there
is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the
order impugned, thus, no interference is
warranted.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the
State has supported the version of counsel
for respondent no. 6 and submitted that
there is limited scope for the District
Inspector of Schools to apply his mind so
far as the approval or disapproval of the
suspension order is concerned and he
recorded the reasons by adverting that no
evidence or material was available for
approval of the suspension order as per the
provision of Section 16(G)(5) of Act 1921,
therefore, the suspension order passed by
the Committee of Management has rightly
been disapproved.

14. Upon considering the submissions
of counsel for the parties and after perusal
of records, it is apparent that the impugned
order has been passed in-compliance of the
order dated 15.09.2025, passed in Writ A
No. 10304 of 2025. Vide the aforesaid
order, this Hon'ble Court, while considering
the law settled in the case of Committee of
Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College,
Kanpur(supra), has directed the District
Inspector of Schools to consider and decide
the
matter
on
merits.
The
relevant
paragraph 18 is extracted as under:-

"18. I need not detail the
allegations and material in support
thereof, placed by the Management
before the District Inspector of Schools.
The District Inspector of Schools while
exercising power under sub-section (7) of
Section 16G acts in a supervisory
capacity. He has to record brief reason to
accord approval or disapproval to any
order of suspension passed by the
Management. The District Inspector of
Schools has to examine the papers so
transmitted but would have no right to
address on the merit of the charges, but
has only to see on, prima facie, basis, as
to whether, charges have any substance.
The issue in that regard has to be
examined in departmental enquiry to be
held against the Principal/Teacher."
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. It has been held that brief reasons
must be recorded while disapproving the
suspension order, which apparently is
lacking in the present matter.

16. When this Court examines the
impugned order dated 06.10.2025 on law
and facts, it emerges that the District
Inspector of Schools, after receiving the
papers from the petitioners, concluded it,
on mainly five grounds, which are
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
The ground nos. 1 & 2 is said to be the
main basis of the consideration. It is said
that the sub-committee was not constituted,
whereas, the provisions of Section 16(G)5
as well as the regulation 35 of the
regulations made under the Act 1921 do not
provide such provision. Section 16(G)(5) of
the Act 1921 is extracted hereinunder:-

"16-G (5) No Head of Institution
or teacher shall be suspended by the
management, unless in the opinion of the
management-

(a) the charges against him are
serious enough to merit his dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank; or

(b) his continuance in office is
likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings against him; or

(c) any criminal case for an
offence involving moral turpitude against
him is under investigation, inquiry or
trial."

17. So far as the provision for
constituting sub-committee is concerned,
that has been prescribed under regulation
35, which in fact regarding the enquiry and
not for passing the suspension order. The
regulation 35 reads as under:-

"35. भशकायत अिवा गम्िीर प्रकृभत के आरोपों
की प्रभतकूि आख्या प्राप्त होने पर भमभत, अध्यापकों एविं अन्य
कमाचाररयों के भवर्य में प्रधानाध्यापक अिवा आचाया अिवा
प्रबन्धक को जाूँच अभधकारी भनयुक्त करेगी ( अिवा प्रबन्धक स्वयिं
जाूँच करेगा यभि भमभत द्वारा भनयमों के अन्तगात उ े यह अभधकार
प्रभतभनभहत हो गये है) और प्रधान अध्यापक अिवा आचाया के
भवर्य में एक िोटी उप भमभत होगी भज े आख्या यिाशीघ्र प्रस्तुत
करने के भनिेश होंगे। चतुिा श्रेिी के कमाचाररयों के म्बन्ध में
प्रधानाचाया/ प्रधानाध्यापक द्वारा भक ी वररष्ठ अध्यापक को जाूँच
अभधकारी भनयुक्त भकया जायेगा।"

18. So far as the ground no. 2, which
reads that 'no approved chargesheet was
served upon respondent no. 6' can not be
the zone of consideration of approval or
disapproval of the suspension order,
whereas, the District Inspector Of Schools
could have applied his mind on the
evidence/records sent by the Committee of
Management, under Regulation 39 and the
provisions of section 16(G)(5) should have
strictly been followed. Therefore, the
second ground also goes against the
mandate of the act and regulations.

19. The third ground is also not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act
1921, as it has been said that the
chargesheet dated 10.01.2025, is not
approved
by
the
Committee
of
Management,'
whereas,
the
District
Inspector Of Schools should have applied
his
mind
on
the
material/evidence
regarding the suspension order and not the
chargesheet.

20. Further, this Court finds that the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
while
disapproving the suspension order passed
by the Committee of Management has said
that since no evidence was made available
by the Committee of Management for
approval of the suspension order, therefore,
the conditions prescribed under Section
12 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
241
16(G)(5) are not fulfilled, thus, the
suspension order passed by the Committee
of Management has been disapproved,
whereas, Section 16(G)(5) laid the first
ground for consideration regarding the
nature of the charges and there is not a
single
whisper
in
the
order
dated
06.10.2025, to discuss the seriousness of
the charges, thus, there seems to be the
non-application of mind of the District
Inspector of Schools.

21. This Court is also aware of the
judgment and order rendered in the case of
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N.
Inter College, Kanpur(supra), wherein, it
is specifically held that the District
Inspector of Schools while taking decision
regarding approval or disapproval, on
suspension
order
proposed
by
the
Committee of Management, shall record,
brief reasons, but so far as the case in hand
is concerned that too is missing, as no
reason has been recorded, for disapproval
of the recommendation of the Committee
of Management, in the order impugned
dated 06.10.2025. Consequently, the order
dated 06.10.2025 is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.

22. Ergo, the impugned order dated
06.10.2025, is hereby quashed.

23. The matter is relegated back to the
District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh
order, on the papers already sent by the
petitioner, on 04.01.2025, as well as the
objection given by respondent no. 6, within
a period of five weeks from the date of this
order, while strictly adhering with the
relevant provisions of law.

24. Parties are directed to cooperate in
the
proceedings
before
the
District
Inspector of Schools concerned.

25. It is further provided that no party
shall take unnecessary adjournments.

26. The present writ petition is
allowed accordingly.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 241
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 14000 of 2025

C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether it is incumbent upon the District
Inspector of Schools (DISs) to issue notice to
the Committee of Management (Committee) or
the same shall be heard after receiving the
proposal/recommendation of the Committee of
Management for dismissal of an employee from
service or any punishment is awarded as
prescribed u/s 16(G)(B) even the provision
overtly does not prohibit so?

Headnotes
A. Service Law
- U.P. Intermediate
Education Act: Section 16 G 3(a)(b);
Regulations 31 to 45, of Chapter III of the
Regulations
-
If
there
are
civil
consequences of any decision or order,
such order/decision has to be preceded by
a show cause notice. The basic principle of
natural justice is that before adjudication starts,
the authority concerned should give to the
affected party, a notice of the case, so that he
could defend himself. (Para 20, 22, 24)

B. The law of principle of natural justice
developed with the intent to give the
minimum protection to the rights of the
individuals against the arbitrary act or the
procedure in judicial, quasi judicial and