# Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 378
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-11
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 1059 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-gyanvati-dixit-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53122
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-G - Ch.
III - Reg. 39 of Regulation - Suspension -
No charge sheet was issued - Effect -
Approval to the suspension was granted
by DIOS - Validity challenged - Held,
there may not be any charge sheet at the
time of issuance of suspension order
dated 09.11.2024 but at the time of
approving the suspension order, there
must be a charge sheet containing specific
charges
showing
seriousness
thereof
before the DIOS and if there was no
charge sheet before the DIOS at the time
of granting approval of the suspension
order, the impugned approval order dated
20.12.2024 would vitiate - DIOS had no
material before him to form a view so as
to approve the suspension order as per
procedure prescribed under the Act, 1921.
(Para 35 and 41)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,889 of 43,280. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39889 for what follows._

378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 378
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 1059 of 2025

Dr. Gyanvati Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey,
Shreshth Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Ashuthosh Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-G - Ch.
III - Reg. 39 of Regulation - Suspension -
No charge sheet was issued - Effect -
Approval to the suspension was granted
by DIOS - Validity challenged - Held,
there may not be any charge sheet at the
time of issuance of suspension order
dated 09.11.2024 but at the time of
approving the suspension order, there
must be a charge sheet containing specific
charges
showing
seriousness
thereof
before the DIOS and if there was no
charge sheet before the DIOS at the time
of granting approval of the suspension
order, the impugned approval order dated
20.12.2024 would vitiate - DIOS had no
material before him to form a view so as
to approve the suspension order as per
procedure prescribed under the Act, 1921.
(Para 35 and 41)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satya Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2006
SCC OnLine All 602
2. Hari Singh Rajput Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2015
SCC OnLine All 8499

3. Deshraj Singh Vs St. of U.P.; 2019 SCC
OnLine All 4473

4. Ram Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2023
SCC OnLine All 1310

5. Writ-A No.909 of 2020; C/M of Janta Inter
College & anr.Vs St. of U.P. and 3 Others
decided on 06.05.2020

6. C/M Maharajganj Inter College & anr.Vs
District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and
another; 1999 SCC OnLine All 693

7. Ram Kripal Katiyar Vs District Inspector of
Schools & ors.; MANU/UP/0556/2009

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, assisted by Sri
Shreshth Srivastava and Sri Ashutosh
Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1
to 4 and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party no.5.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following main
reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction
in nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated
20/12/2024
bearing
reference
no.6240-46/2024-25
2025,
passed
by
respondent no. 4. A copy of which is
contained in ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this writ
petition.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to allow the petitioner to
continue on the Principal of Shri Dayanand
Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
Inter College, Sitapur and to pay her salary
regularly notwithstanding the order dated
20.12.2024 by which the earlier suspension
order
dated
9.11.2024,
has
been
confirmed."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was initially appointed on the
post of Lecturer (Hindi) in LRNS Inter
College,
Naimisharan
on
23.01.1993.
Thereafter, she was appointed on the post
of
Principal
at
the
Shri
Dayanand
Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya
Inter College, Sitapur pursuant on the
recommendation of the U.P. Secondary
Education Commission on 22.08.2011.

4. The order of single operation dated
04.01.2019 was passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Sitapur on account of
two rival groups competing for the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution
in
question,
therefore,
authorized controller was appointed.

5. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner raised a voice against the
repeated
transfers
of
various
employees/teachers of the Institution, by
respondent no.5 under the approval of
respondent no.4 resulting 33 posts fallen
vacant and also against her harassment,
which gave a cause to the respondent no.5
and respondent no.4 to take coercive action
against her.

6. Opposite party no.5 has initially
issued a suspension order on 04.10.2024
against the petitioner under Section 16(G)
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act, 1921") by which the
petitioner has been suspended from the post
of Principal, Shri Dayanand Rameshwar
Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College,
Sitapur, prima-facie, on the ground of
failure on part of the petitioner to comply
the directions of this Court for reinstating
one Smt. Rajrani into service.

7. The above-mentioned suspension
order was assailed by the petitioner before
this Court by filing writ petition bearing
Writ-A No.9746 of 2024, in re: Dr.
Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. & Others,
which was decided vide order dated
05.11.2024. This Court was pleased to
quash the above-mentioned suspension
order, with a direction that consequences to
follow under law. This Court has given
liberty to the competent authority to pass a
fresh order, if required, in accordance with
law (Annexure No.9).

8. The order dated 05.11.2024 was
uploaded on 06.11.2024 and the same was
served upon opposite party no.5 but
opposite party no.5 without reinstating the
petitioner has again issued a suspension
order against the petitioner under Section
16-G of the Act, 1921 on 09.11.2024.
Petitioner challenged the suspension order
dated 09.11.2024 before this Court by
filing Writ-A No.11061 of 2024 (Dr.
Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others),
which has been dismissed vide order dated
27.11.2024 but without expressing any
opinion on the ground urged by the
petitioner, so far it relates to the violation
of Section-16-G (5)(a) of the Act, 1921.

9. The petitioner met opposite party
no.2 on 12.11.2024 apprising him about her
victimization at the behest of opposite party
no.5.

10. During the pendency of the
subsequent
writ
petition,
counsel
representing opposite party no.5, through
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the short counter-affidavit, has brought on
record one letter under the heading of
charge-sheet/show-cause dated 20.11.2024
by which the petitioner was required to
submit her explanation.

11. From perusal of the aforesaid letter
dated 20.11.2024 it would reveal that in the
aforesaid
letter
the
allegations
were
referred calling reply of the petitioner so
that the charge-sheet could be issued to the
petitioner. Significantly, no material which
makes the basis of allegation were served
upon the petitioner. The aforesaid letter
would further reveal that by the date
issuance of the aforesaid letter opposite
party no.5 has yet not issued any chargesheet.

12. After the receipt of the aforesaid
letter, the petitioner through her letter dated
05.12.2024 denied the allegations and
requested to furnish the charge-sheet
together with the documents so that the
petitioner could give reply to the
charge-sheet.

13. The charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner which was served upon
the petitioner on 15.01.2025. The
District Inspector of Schools by the
impugned
order
approved
the
suspension order dated 09.11.2024 in
exercise of powers under section 16-G
(7) of the Act, 1921.

14. While assailing the aforesaid
impugned order dated 20.12.2024, Sri
Sudeep Kumar has stated that the order
passed by opposite party no.4 under
Section 16-G (7) read with Regulation
No.39 of Chapter-III under the Act, 1921
can only be passed after affording an
opportunity to the delinquent employee in
view of the provisions contained in
Regulation-39 read with Regulation-36 of
Chapter-III under the Act, 1921.

15. Sri Sudeep Kumar has, however,
submitted that the aforesaid provision of
law nowhere categorically provides that an
opportunity of hearing has to be accorded
to
the
employee/
Teacher/Principal/
management yet the same has been evolved
through various judicial pronouncements of
this Court wherein this Court has held that
an opportunity of hearing has to be given to
the aggrieved person before the District
Inspector of Schools either approves or
rejects the suspension order.

16. Attention has been drawn towards
para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2006 SCC OnLine All
602, paras-3 & 5 of the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari
Singh Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8499; para8 of Deshraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2019
SCC OnLine All 4473, and paras 6 & 11
of Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1310.

17. Sri Sudeep Kumar has fairly
submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge in
re; C/M of Janta Inter College and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others,
Writ-A No.909 of 2020, vide judgment
and order dated 06.05.2020, has observed
that opportunity of hearing is not required
before approving the suspension order but
the aforesaid judgment has been delivered
by the Hon'ble Single Judge without
appreciating the ratio of the judgment of
the Division Bench in re; Hari Singh
Rajput (supra) in correct perspective. Sri
Sudeep Kumar has, however, referred para20 in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra),
which categorically says that if all the
required
papers
and
informations
as
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381
prescribed under sub-section (7) of Section
16-G of the Act, 1921 and Regulation 39
have been submitted by the Management to
the District Inspector of Schools to obtain
approval of suspension, then opportunity of
hearing at the stage of granting approval or
disapproval is not required to be afforded to
the Management or the employee. But if
the
employee
has
submitted
any
representation or objection against the
order of suspension, then the District
Inspector of Schools shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the Management
and the concerned employee while passing
the order of approval or disapproval which
must contain brief reasons. Perusal thereof
clearly mandates two conditions; first, if all
required
papers
and
informations
as
prescribed under the law have been
submitted by the Management to the
District Inspector of Schools to obtain
approval of suspension, then opportunity of
hearing is not required and if any employee
has
submitted
any
representation
or
objection against the order of suspension,
then such opportunity would be required. In
the present case, the impugned order
approving the suspension order does not
indicate that it has been passed by proper
application of mind inasmuch as no brief
reasons have been recorded by the District
Inspector of Schools as to how the
suspension order has been passed by
opposite party no.5 warrants confirmation.
It is clear that at the time of passing the
impugned order neither any representation
of opposite party no.5 was available to
opposite party no.4 nor the charge sheet
was available with opposite party no.4.

18.
Besides,
after
passing
the
suspension order dated 09.11.2024, the
petitioner personally met with the Director,
Madhyamik Education (opposite party
no.2) on 12.11.2024 (Annexure No.14)
apprising about her victimization at the
behest of opposite party no.5, therefore, the
specific comments should have been asked
from opposite party no.4 by opposite party
no.2 and in that way before passing the
impugned order dated 20.12.2024 by
opposite party no.4, one opportunity of
hearing could have been given to her in
terms of para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter
College (supra).

19. Sri Sudeep Kumar has, therefore,
submitted that the Division Bench of this
Court in re; Committee of Management,
Maharajganj Inter College and another
Vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Maharajganj and another, 1999, SCC
OnLine All 693, vide para-4 thereof has
held that Regulation 39 of Chapter-III
under
the
Act,
1921
provides
the
particulars, which the report regarding
suspension of the Head of the Institution or
of the Teacher to be submitted to the
Inspector is to contain and also provides the
documents, which are to accompany the
report.
These
provisions
clearly
demonstrate that approval or disapproval of
suspension of a Teacher including Principal
is not an empty formality. The Inspector is
required to address himself to the grounds
on which the order of suspension is
founded as also the documents, if any,
prima facie supporting the charges levelled
against Head of the Institution or Teacher
as the case may be. Sri Sudeep Kumar has
reiterated that the impugned order granting
approval to the suspension order suffers
from patent illegality and is without
application of mind inasmuch as while
passing the impugned order, opposite party
no.4 has failed to record his opinion as
contemplated under Section 16-G (7) read
with Regulation 39 of Chapter-III of the
Act, 1921. Further, the impugned order
does not indicate as to whether the District
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inspector of Schools has considered the
relevant material, which was allegedly
furnished while submitting the report under
Regulation 39 of of the Regulations under
the Act, 1921. Sri Sudeep Kumar has also
reiterated that in view of para-3 in re; Hari
Singh Rajput (supra), an opportunity of
being heard is to be granted to the Principal
before granting approval to the suspension
order. Since the impugned order has been
passed in violation of the aforesaid
provisions of law, therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

20. Sri Sudeep Kumar has lastly
submitted that in terms of Regulation 39
read with Regulation 40 of the Regulations
under the Act, 1921 for approving the
suspension order, issuance of charge sheet
is sine qua non and in the present case,
charge
sheet
dated
08.01.2025
has
admittedly been served upon the petitioner
on 15.01.2025 whereas the suspension
order has been approved by the District
Inspector of Schools vide impugned order
dated 20.12.2024.

21. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Singh, learned Standing Counsel as well as
Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for
opposite party no.5 have submitted that
since this Court while dismissing the writ
petition of the petitioner vide order dated
27.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No.11061 of
2024, whereby the order of suspension
dated 09.11.2024 was challenged has
observed in para-30 that once the charges
are serious as such the suspension order
would
squarely
be
covered
by
the
provisions of Section 16-G (5)(a) of the
Act, 1921 and thus, the petitioner has
correctly been placed under suspension in
terms of the aforesaid provision; the
validity of suspension order has been
upheld by this Court and the petitioner has
not assailed that order by filing appeal
before the superior Court. Learned counsel
for the opposite parties have, therefore,
submitted that since validity of suspension
order has been upheld, therefore, the same
cannot be assailed. They have also stated
that this Court in re; C/M Janta Inter
College (supra) has held that opportunity of
hearing is not required before granting
approval of the suspension order, so that
ground may not be taken by the petitioner.
They have also submitted that the petitioner
should participate in the departmental
inquiry and direction may be issued to
expedite the inquiry. Sri Ashutosh Singh
has placed reliance upon the decision of
this Court in re; Ram Kripal Katiyar Vs.
District Inspector of Schools and Ors.,
reported
in
MANU/UP/0556/2009,
submitting that before granting approval to
the suspension order, the District Inspector
of Schools is not required to afford an
opportunity of hearing to the employee,
who has been suspended by the Committee
of Management.

22. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that though
this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024
(supra) in para-30 has observed that on
account of serious charges, the petitioner
has correctly been placed under suspension
but in subsequent para i.e. para-31 this
Court has categorically observed that it has
not expressed any opinion with regard to
the provisions of Section 16-G (5) (b) of
the Act, 1921 that without issuance of
charge sheet, the suspension order cannot
be passed and this question is left open to
be considered in an appropriate case.
Therefore, the relevant aspect in this regard
may be considered in this matter.

23. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
383
available on record, before adverting the
arguments so advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, I would like to refer
Section 16-G (5) of the Act, 1921, which
reads as under:-

"(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."

24. Regulation 39 (a), (c) & (d) of
Chapter-III of the Regulations under the
Act, 1921 reads as under:-

"39. (a) The report regarding the
suspension of the head of institution or of
the teacher to be submitted to the
Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section
16-G
shall
contain
the
following
particulars and be accompanied by the
following document -

(a) the name of the persons
suspended along with, particulars of the
(posts including grades) held by him since
the date of his original appointment till the
time of suspension including particulars as
to the nature of tenure held at the time of
suspension, e.g., temporary, permanent or
officiating;

(c) details of all the charges on
the basis of which such person was
suspended;

(d)
certified
copies
of
the
complaints, reports and inquiry report, if
any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of
which such person was suspended."

25. Para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh
(supra), paras-3 & 5 of the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari
Singh Rajput (supra), para-8 of Deshraj
Singh (supra), paras 6 & 11 of Ram Vijay
Singh (supra), para-4 of Committee of
Management,
Maharajganj
Inter
College (supra), para-7 in re; Ram Kripal
Katiyar (supra) and para-20 in re; C/M
Janta Inter College (supra) are required to
be reproduced herein below.

26. Para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh
(supra) reads as under:-

"12. Under Clause (5) of section
16-G, the Committee of Management could
suspend a teacher or a Head of the
Institution on certain grounds mentioned
therein. The order was forwarded under
Clause
(6)
along
with
the
papers
prescribed
under
Regulation
39
of
Chapter-III. These papers were required to
be considered and the Inspector was
required to apply his mind and was
required to give the reasons while
according approval or disapproval of the
suspension order. In the present case, no
reasons have been recorded and, therefore,
it is clear, that the Inspector did not apply
his mind to the facts and the circumstances
of the case. There is another aspect of the
matter. The Committee of Management
while issuing the suspension order is not
required to given an opportunity of hearing
to the teacher or the head of the institution.
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Therefore, at the stage when the order of
suspension is being approved and the
Inspector is required to apply his mind, it is
at that stage, a bare minimum opportunity
of hearing is required to be given to the
suspended teacher or the Principal, as the
case may be. This is the bare minimum
requirement of the principles of natural
justice, which is required to be given at that
time, by the Inspector, while approving or
disapproving the suspension order. This is
on account of the fact, that the papers
forwarded
by
the
Committee
of
Management under Regulation 39 of
Chapter III may contain the reasons, which
are only one sided. The other side of the
coin should also be considered and that is
when the suspended teacher or the
Principal would come into the picture.
Consequently, in the opinion of the Court,
the Inspector is also required to give an
opportunity of hearing and hear the version
of the suspended teacher or the principal
before approving or disapproving the order
of suspension. In the present case, no
opportunity of hearing was provided to the
petitioner."

27. Paragraphs No.3 & 5 of the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra) read as
under:-

"3. When the District Inspector of
Schools considers whether to approve an
order of suspension under Section 16-G of
the Act, it is a well settled principle of law
that an opportunity of being heard ought to
be granted to the teacher, the Principal and
the Management. Moreover, it is also a
well settled principle of law that the
District Inspector of Schools must pass a
reasoned order indicating at least brief
reasons for granting his approval or, as the
case may be, disapproval to the suspension
of
a
teacher
(See:
Committee
of
Management, Maharajganj Inter College
v. District Inspector of Schools1). In the
present case, ex facie the order of the
District Inspector of Schools dated 9
December 2014, which was in question
before the learned Single Judge, did not
indicate any reasons.

5. We have duly perused the
order of the District Inspector of Schools
dated 9 December 2014. The first
paragraph of the order contains only a
recital of the fact that following the
enquiry report, the Management had
resolved on 16 November 2014 to place
the appellant teacher under suspension
and, accordingly, an application was
submitted on 4 December 2014 for
approval. The second paragraph of the
order only contains his conclusion
granting approval. Not even brief reasons
were indicated in the order, which is
totally bereft of any reasons whatsoever.
Moreover, it is not in dispute that the
appellant was not given an opportunity of
being heard, which has been held to be
required in the judgment of the Division
Bench noted above."

28. Para-8 of Deshraj Singh (supra)
reads as under:-

"8.In view of the exposition of
law laid down by the Apex Court in
Dharampal
Satyapal
Ltd.
v.
Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati,
(2015) 8 SCC 519 as also the observation
of the subsequent division bench judgement
of this Court in Hari Singh Rajput (supra)
and also for the reasons narrated above,
this Court is not inclined to accept the
argument
of
respondents
that
an
opportunity of hearing would not be
required to be given by the Inspector at the
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
stage of grant of approval to the resolution
of suspension."

29. Paras 6 & 11 of Ram Vijay Singh
(supra) read as under:-

"6. I have also perused the
instruction placed by the learned Standing
Counsel and it clearly transpires from the
pleadings that while the petitioner was
placed
under
suspension
and
the
suspension order was forwarded to the
District Inspector of Schools, it did not
contain any of the document like resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management,
chargesheet and other documents in
support thereof.

11.
The
Committee
of
Management is directed to supply all
requisite
documents
including
the
chargesheet dated 23.3.2023 and also all
the relevant documents in support of the
chargesheet, within two weeks from today.
The District Inspector of Schools shall
thereafter fix a date giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as
Committee of Management within ten days
and he shall proceed to pass further orders
within next 15 days."

30.
Para-4
of
Committee
of
Management,
Maharajganj
Inter
College (supra) reads as under:-

"4.
Having
heard
learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that the order passed by the District
Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained in
law. A Division Bench of this Court in
Committee of Management S.M.R.K. Inter
College v. District Inspector of Schools,
Ballia, has clearly held that order
approving or disapproving resolution of
Committee of Management to suspend
Principal or teacher must contain reasons
and further that absence of reasons would
vitiate the order. Admittedly, the District
Inspector of Schools did not address
himself to relevant papers forwarded
alongwith the letter seeking approval of the
suspension
and
declined
to
accord
approval
on
consideration
of
the
representation made by the respondentteacher. Section 16-G(5) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides
that 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 or removal or reduction
in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is
likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of
the disciplinary proceedings against him;
or (c) any criminal case for an offence
involving criminal turpitude against him is
under investigation, inquiry or trial. Subsection (6) requires that where any head of
the institution or teacher is suspended by
the Committee of Management, it shall be
reported to the Inspector within a period
stipulated therein and it further provides
that
the
report
shall
contain
such
particulars as may be prescribed and be
accompanied by all relevant documents.
Regulation 39 of Chapter III of the Act
provides the particulars, which the report
regarding suspension of the head of
institution or of the teacher to be submitted
to the Inspector is to contain and also
provides the documents, which are to
accompany the report. Sub-section (7) of
Section 16 clearly provides that no order of
suspension shall, unless approved in
writing by the Inspector, remain in force
for more than 60 days. Section 16-G
empowers the District Inspector of Schools
to revoke an order of suspension after
affording opportunity to the management in
case he is satisfied that the disciplinary
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings against the head of the
institution or the teacher are being delayed
for no fault of the concerned teacher. These
provisions
clearly
demonstrate
that
approval or disapproval of suspension of a
teacher including the Principal is not an
empty formality. The Inspector is required
to address himself to the grounds on which
the order of suspension is founded as also
the documents,
if
any,
prima
facie
supporting the charges levelled against the
Head of the Institution or the teacher, as
the case may be. In case the charges of the
nature referred to in sub-section (5) of
Section 16-G are prima facie supported by
evidence then in that event the Inspector
can not withhold approval. On the other
hand in case the charges are of trivial
nature and are not covered by the charges
mentioned in sub-section (5) of Section 16G and/or there are no prima facie
documents or material in support of the
charges then the Inspector may disapprove
of the suspension of the Principal or the
teacher as the case may be. In the instant
case the District Inspector of Schools
appears to have failed to discharge his
statutory duty and given no reasons in
support of the order. In the circumstances,
therefore, the order passed by the District
Inspector of Schools was liable to be
quashed and the learned Single Judge
erred in law in dismissing the writ petition.
In fact the question was not examined by
the learned Single Judge in the above
perspective and instead the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition holding
that while considering the approval or
disapproval
of
suspension
order
no
opportunity of hearing was required to be
given by the District Inspector of Schools.
It is true that a Division Bench of this
Court has held in the case of Managing
Committee, Dayanand Inter College v.
District Inspector of Schools, that at the
stage of approval or disapproval of the
suspension order the Inspector is not
required to afford any opportunity of
hearing to the management and that he is
only to consider the relevant material
referred to in Regulation No. 39 of Chapter
III of the Regulations. The said decision, in
our opinion, is of no avail. In the instant
case, however, as pointed out above, the
District Inspector of Schools did not
address himself to the charges and the
relevant documents and disapproved the
suspension order on the basis of the
representation
made
by
the
teacher
concerned. If the suspension is to be
disapproved on consideration of any defect
pointed out by the concerned teacher by
means of a representation, opportunity has
to be afforded to the Management before
disapproving of the suspension on any such
defect in the proceedings."

31. Para-7 in re; Ram Kripal Katiyar
(supra) reads as under:-

"7.
The
employer
or
the
appointing authority before taking decision
to initiate proceeding may hold a fact
finding inquiry wherein the employee
cannot claim right to be heard or to
participate. Right of delinquent employee
of hearing or affording opportunity arises
only from the stage when the charges are
framed against him in the disciplinary
proceeding and not at any stage anterior to
the
framing
of
charges.
The
order
suspending an employee in a pending
proceeding or contemplated proceeding is
not
a
quasi-judicial
order
but
an
administrative order and, therefore, it is
not necessary to obtain explanation of the
Government servant before placing him
under suspension. At the time of passing of
order of suspension the authority is only
required to consider that the alleged
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387
charge does not appear to be groundless,
non-est or mala fide and it requires
inquiry, and to hold fair inquiry it is
necessary to keep him away from duty. (See
Mohd. Ghouse v. State of Andhra Pradesh
MANU/SC/0090/1956: AIR 1957 SC 246).
We are, therefore, clearly of the view that
at the stage of passing of order of
suspension in a contemplated or pending
departmental proceeding, there is no
requirement of any opportunity of hearing
to the Government servant or even to call
for show cause. Thus, in view of the above
legal position, non-affording of opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner-appellant would
not
vitiate
the
impugned
order
of
suspension."

32. Para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter
College (supra) reads as under:-

"20.
Scope
of
consideration
under Section 16G(7) read with Regulation
39 is very limited as has also been
explained in the case of Ram Autar Verma
(supra). Thus, a conjoint reading of the
afore-noted four judgments reveal that if
all the required papers and informations as
prescribed under sub-section (7) of Section
16G of the Act, 1921 and Regulation 39
have been submitted by the Management to
the District Inspector of Schools to obtain
approval of suspension, then opportunity of
hearing at the stage of granting approval
or disapproval is not required to be
afforded to the Management or the
employee. But if the employee has
submitted any representation or objection
against the order of suspension, then the
District Inspector of Schools shall afford
an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Management and the concerned employee
while passing the order of approval or
disapproval which must contain brief
reasons. This view is further supported by
the provisions of sub-Section (8) of Section
16G, which specifically provides for an
opportunity of hearing at the subsequent
stage to the Management by the District
Inspector of Schools while considering to
revoke an order of suspension passed
under sub-section (7) when the Inspector is
satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings
against the head of the Institution or
teacher, is being delayed for no fault of the
head of the Institution or the teacher."

33. Notably, Regulation 39 (a), (c) &
(d) of Chapter-III of the Regulations under
the Act, 1921 categorically provides that
the report regarding the suspension of the
Head of the Institution etc. shall contain
relevant
particulars
and
documents
including details of all the charges on the
basis of which such person was suspended
as well as certified copies of the
complaints, reports and inquiry report, if
any, of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of
which such person was suspended. If the
aforesaid Regulation is read with Section
16-G (5) of the Act, 1921, no Head of the
Institution etc shall be suspended by the
Management unless in the opinion of the
Management the charges against the
employee are so serious entailing major
punishment and the District Inspector of
Schools must have subjective satisfaction
on the charges and such consideration must
be reflected in the order approving
suspension order. In the present case,
admittedly, the charge sheet has been
issued against the petitioner on 08.01.2025
but the impugned suspension order has
been approved by the impugned order
dated 20.12.2024.

34. This Court while dismissing the
earlier writ petition of the petitioner
whereby the suspension order was assailed
has categorically observed in para-31 that it
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has not expressed any opinion with regard
to the provisions of Section 16-G (5) (b) of
the Act, 1921 that without issuance of
charge sheet the suspension order cannot be
passed and the said question would be
considered at appropriate stage and I think
by means of this petition, this fact may be
considered.

35. When there was no charge sheet
before the District Inspector of Schools, as
to how the suspension order could have
been approved by him. There may not be
any charge sheet at the time of issuance of
suspension order dated 09.11.2024 but at
the time of approving the suspension order,
there must be a charge sheet containing
specific
charges
showing
seriousness
thereof before the District Inspector of
Schools and if there was no charge sheet
before the District Inspector of Schools at
the time of granting approval of the
suspension order, the impugned approval
order dated 20.12.2024 would vitiate. This
Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 (supra)
has approved the suspension order but at
that point of time, the order approving the
suspension order was not before the Court
and that question was left open by the
Court in the aforesaid order for simple
reason that if the District Inspector of
Schools approves the suspension order
without going through the seriousness of
the charges, which could have been
indicated in the charge sheet, the approval
of suspension order would vitiate.

36. Though learned Single Judge of
this Court in re; C/M Janta Inter College
(supra) has observed that before approving
the suspension order, opportunity of
hearing to the employee is not required but
it has been observed that the Management
shall provide all required papers and
informations in terms of Section 16-G of
the Act, 1921 read with Regulation 39 of
the Regulations under the Act, 1921, so the
District Inspector of Schools may either
approve
that
suspension
order
after
perusing all those documents and relevant
material or disapprove the same. If the
order is disapproved, an opportunity of
hearing is to be given to the Committee of
Management and to the charged employee
in terms of Section 16-G (8) of the Act,
1921 but if that order is approved, no such
opportunity would be required. However, if
the
employee
has
submitted
any
representation or objection against the
order of suspension, then the District
Inspector of Schools shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the Management
as well as the concerned employee while
passing order of approval or disapproval,
which must contain brief reasons. In the
present case, all required papers and
informations including charge sheet have
not been forwarded to the District Inspector
of Schools, therefore, proper application of
mind before granting approval of the
suspension order was not possible and the
petitioner had preferred one detailed
representation dated 12.11.2024 to the
Director, Madhyamik Education, so the
petitioner should have been given an
opportunity of hearing by the District
Inspector of Schools before granting
approval
of
the
suspension
order.
Therefore, in the light of the observation of
the Single Judge in re; C/M Janta Inter
College (supra), the petitioner should be
afforded a proper opportunity of hearing
before granting approval to the suspension
order. Had the petitioner been afforded an
opportunity of hearing before passing the
impugned order, the petitioner would have
intimated the District Inspector of Schools
that she has not received any charge sheet
pursuant to the impugned suspension order
dated 09.11.2024.
4 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389

37. This Court in re; Committee of
Management,
Maharajganj
Inter
College (supra) has categorically observed
that the provisions of Section 16-G of the
Act, 1921 read with Regulation 39 of
Chapter-III of the Regulations clearly
demonstrate that approval or disapproval of
suspension of Head of the Institution etc. is
not an empty formality and the District
Inspector of Schools is required to address
himself to the grounds on which the order
of suspension is founded as also the
documents, if any, prima facie, supporting
the charges levelled against the Head of the
Institution.

38. This Court in re; Satya Pal Singh
(supra) has categorically held that if the
required papers are produced before the
District Inspector of Schools, the Inspector
was required to apply his mind and was
also required to give the reason regarding
approval or disapproval of the suspension
order. In the case of Satya Pal Singh
(supra), no reason was recorded by the
District Inspector of Schools, therefore, this
Court was of the view that the Inspector did
not apply his mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the present
case also, neither all required papers
including copy of charge sheet was
produced before the District Inspector of
Schools nor the District Inspector of
Schools
has
given
his
subjective
satisfaction
granting
approval to the
suspension order. For the aforesaid reason,
this Court in re; Satya Pal Singh (supra)
quashed the impugned order granting
approval to the suspension order.

39. Division Bench of this Court in re;
Hari Singh Rajput (supra) reiterated the
aforesaid position of law and has also
observed that before granting approval to
the suspension order, proper opportunity of
hearing should be given to the employee. In
para-5 of the aforesaid judgment, the
Division Bench found that not even brief
reasons were indicated in the order, which
was
totally
bereft
of
any
reasons
whatsoever and in the present case also, the
District Inspector of Schools has not given
his subjective satisfaction and one letternotice
dated
07.08.2024
has
been
reiterated, which was subject matter to the
earlier writ petition. Not only the above, if
the allegations are taken on its face value,
which have been considered in the
impugned order dated 20.12.2024, prima
facie, it appears that the allegations are
vague which provides that the petitioner
has allegedly tortured some students and
had not provided basic amenities and
requirements including mid-day meal to the
students.

40. This Court in re; Ram Vijay
Singh (supra) quashed the order of the
District Inspector of Schools approving the
suspension order for the reason that it did
not contain any document like resolution of
the Committee of Management, charge
sheet and other documents in support
thereof. In the present case, admittedly, no
charge sheet was forwarded to the District
Inspector of Schools inasmuch as the
charge sheet dated 08.01.2025 was served
upon the petitioner on 15.01.2025 i.e. after
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.12.2024
granting
approval
to
the
suspension order.

41.