ORDER B.N. Lokur, J. - The petitioner is an Intermediate College governed by the Intermediate Education Act. 1921. Respondent No. 1. Vidya Shanker Pathak. was an Assistant Teacher in the College. After holding an enquiry into four charges levelled against respondent No. 1. the Committee of Management of the College decided to dismiss him from service. Under Section 16-G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act. prior approval of the Inspector is necessary before an Intermediate College dismisses a teacher. Accordingly, reference was made by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, who is respondent No. 2 in this petition. The proviso to Section 16G (3) (b) of the said Act requires the Inspector to give an opportunity to the teacher to show cause why the punishment of dismissal or removal should not be inflicted upon him. Hence, respondent No. 2 called upon respondent No. 1 to show cause why he should not be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 submitted his explanation, along with which he produced the statements of four students to disprove one of the charges, namely, that respondent No. 1 was unauthorisedly giving tuition to these students and receiving fees from them. Respondent No. 2. on a consideration of these statements, differed from the findings of the Committee of Management on this charge. The Inspector also did not accept the findings of the Committee of Management on other charges and withheld approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management to dismiss respondent No. 1. The Committee of Management appealed against the order of the Inspector to the Deputy Director of Education. respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director did not disturb the orders of the Inspector and the College has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Inspector as well as of the Deputy Director. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner College has raised two objections against the validity of the order of the Inspector withholding approval to the proposal to dismiss respondent No. 1. The first objection was that the Inspector was not competent to receive additional evidence while considering whether or not to approve the proposal submitted by the College; the second objection was that one of the four charges was not considered at all by the Inspector. 3. As regards the first objection. The first objection was that the Inspector was not competent to receive additional evidence while considering whether or not to approve the proposal submitted by the College; the second objection was that one of the four charges was not considered at all by the Inspector. 3. As regards the first objection. the relevant provision in Section 16-G(3) (b) reads as follows; "16-G (3) (b) - The Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the Management. Provided that in the case of punishment before passing orders the Inspector shall give an opportunity to the Principal, Headmaster or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted". This provision is silent as to the procedure to be followed by the Inspector; it is also silent as to the scope of the explanation to be given by the teacher. If the teacher, along with his explanation, submits some additional evidence in support of his innocence, it cannot be said that the Inspector is precluded from entertaining such additional evidence. The Inspector is expected to consider impartially whether the proposal of the Committee of Management to dismiss the teacher is justified by the circumstances of the case and in coming to the conclusion whether he should or he should not accord his approval to the proposal, he is at liberty to accept additional evidence in the interests of justice if the teacher adduces such evidence. To my mind, the Inspector has not acted illegally in accepting or considering the statements of the four students produced by respondent No. 1 in response to the show cause notice issued to him. 4. It was further argued that even if the Inspector is competent to receive additional evidence, he could not take it into consideration unless an opportunity is given to the Committee of Management to meet that evidence. I am of the view that if a contrary finding has to be reached by the Inspector in the light of the additional evidence, it is reasonable that such evidence should be brought to the notice of the Committee of Management for its consideration and comments. I am of the view that if a contrary finding has to be reached by the Inspector in the light of the additional evidence, it is reasonable that such evidence should be brought to the notice of the Committee of Management for its consideration and comments. However, this is not a case which invites interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the Inspector took the decision to withhold approval without giving the Committee of Management an opportunity to meet the additional evidence submitted by respondent No. 1: the College, in its appeal to the Deputy Director, did no doubt raise objection to the procedure followed by the Inspector but though the College had the liberty to examine the additional evidence and offer its comments thereon, it did not take any exception to the evidence on merits in the appeal. It is now suggested that the genuineness of the statements of the four students might not be free from doubt, but no such plea was advanced before the Deputy Director and no exception was taken to the evidence on any other ground. Having come to know the details of the additional evidence, one would expect the College to attack the merits of the additional evidence in the appeal, but the failure of the College to comment on the merits of the additional evidence disentitles the College to any relief in writ jurisdiction. 5. As regards the second objection it may be mentioned that the third charge levelled against respondent No. 1 was that respondent No. 1 joined the condensed Course without the permission of the Committee of Management, while the fourth charge was that respondent No. 1 joined that course after relinquishing charge without the leave of the College. The argument was that the Inspector has not dealt with the third charge in his order. Mv attention was drawn to the appellate order of the Deputy Director by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and it was pointed out that the finding of the Deputy Director is that respondent No. 1 relinquished the charge with the oral consent of the Principal and has contended that this finding in fact covers both the third and the fourth charges. It was argued that the third and the fourth charges are interrelated and if respondent No. 1 relinquished charge with the consent of the appropriate authority, the implication would be that he was joining the Condensed Course with the approval of that authority. It was. however, contended that the Principal had no power to permit respondent No. 1 to join the Condensed Course and that such power vested in the Committee of Management. The Deputy Director has obviously condoned the default on the part of respondent No. 1 who had joined the Condensed Course with the Principal's knowledge but without the permission of the Committee of Management of the College. The technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not such as to invite the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the circumstances. I am not inclined to disturb the orders passed by the Inspector and the Deputy Director and dismiss the petition without any order as to costs.