JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. The petitioner was employed as a teacher in the A.S. Intermediate College, Mawana, district Meerut. The committee of Management of the college appointed an enquiry officer to examine certain complaints against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer submitted a report against the petitioner. Thereupon the committee of Management by resolution No. 22 of 1972 resolved that approval should be submitted to the District Inspector of Schools as required under Section 16G(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act for according approval for the termination of the petitioner's services. The District Inspector of Schools, by his letter dated August 30, 1972 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why the committee's proposal for terminating his service should not be accepted The petition submitted his reply to the District Inspector of Schools in reference to the two chargesheets dated February 24, 1972 and March 4, 1973 which had been served on the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner received another letter No, T1 /15010/7273 dated November 18/22, 1972 from the District Inspector of Schools asking him to submit his explanation in respect of three additional charges which accompanied the said letter. The petitioner submitted his reply to the District Inspector in respect of the aforesaid letter dated November 18/22, 1972. In his reply the petitioner pointed out that the Enquiry Officer had given him only two charge sheets. One dated February 24, 1972 and the other dated August 6, 1972, and none of these charge sheets contained the charges mentioned in the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated November 18/22, 1972. The District Inspector of Schools thereupon wrote to the petitioner asking him to contract the committee of Management and obtain a copy of their letter dated June 30, 1972 addressed by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools. A copy of this letter was supplied to the petitioner by the Management. In this letter the Management had written to the Inspector that the petitioner's character was suspicious and his conduct was unsatisfactory, and had given illustrations in support of this allegation. It is further stated that the petitioner had brought false charges against others. The letter also referred to some previous chargesheets served upon the petitioner earlier. In this letter the Management had written to the Inspector that the petitioner's character was suspicious and his conduct was unsatisfactory, and had given illustrations in support of this allegation. It is further stated that the petitioner had brought false charges against others. The letter also referred to some previous chargesheets served upon the petitioner earlier. According to the petitioner the District Inspector of Schools did not fix any 'date for hearing of the matter before him and by his order dated March 14, 1973 refused to record approval to the resolution of the committee of Management proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner but directed that a serious warning may be given to the petitioner by way of punishment and that four increments from the date of suspension may be withheld. Both the committee of Management and the petitioner filed appeals against the order of the District Inspector of Schools before the Deputy Director of Education. The committee of Management was aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools whereby he had refused to accord approval of the proposal for the termination of the petitioner's services; while the petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon him. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated March 22, 1975 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the committee of Management, and after setting aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools accorded approval to the proposal of the committee of Management for the termination of the petitioner's services. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Education the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a perusal of the orders of the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools would show that charges Nos. 1 and 2 as discussed by the District Inspector of Schools in his order are not contained in both the charge sheets which had been served on the petitioner. Similarly, charges Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 6(b) were not included in the charge sheets and no enquiry was held in respect of those charges by the Enquiry Officer. Again, it is pointed out that on behalf of the petitioner that charges (Nos. Similarly, charges Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 6(b) were not included in the charge sheets and no enquiry was held in respect of those charges by the Enquiry Officer. Again, it is pointed out that on behalf of the petitioner that charges (Nos. 8 and 9 as mentioned by the District Inspector of Schools are not the subjectmatter of the charge sheets, dated February 24, 1972 and March 6, 1973 servied on the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the Deputy Director of Education has in his order held that charges Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are proved against the petitioner. Under the provisions of Section 16G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the conditions of service of the Heads of Institutions, teachers, and other employees are prescribed. As far as the present case is concerned, subsection (3) of Section 16G is relevant. It is reproduced below: " (3) (a) No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or Subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or services with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval of writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. (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 case of punishment, before passing orders, Inspector shall give an opportunity to the Principal, the Headmaster or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted. (c) Any party may prefer an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, against an order of the Inspector under clause (b), whether passed before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1966 within one month from the date of communication of the order to that party, and the Regional Deputy Director may, after such, further enquiry, if any, as he considers necessary, confirm, set aside or modify the order, and the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director shall be final. In case the order under appeal was passed by the very person, holding the Officer of Regional Deputy Director while acting as Inspector, the appeal shall be transferred by the order of the Director to some other Regional Deputy Director for decision, and the provisions of this clause shall apply in relation to decision by that other Regional Deputy Director as if the appeal had been preferred to himself." Regulations have also been framed under the aforesaid Act. The regulations relevant for the purpose of the instant case are Nos. 35, 36 and 37 which are reproduced below "35. On receipt of a complaint or an adverse of report of facts of a serious nature, the committee may in the cases of teachers appoint the Headmaster or Principal or Manager as the enquiry Officer (or the Manager may himself set up the enquiry if such power has been delegated to him by the committee under rules), and in the case of the Headmaster or Principal, a small subcommittee, with instructions to submit the report as expeditiously as possible. 36 (1) The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required within three weeks of the receipt of the charge sheet to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether be desired to be heard in person. If he or the inquiring authority so desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring authority considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to crossexamine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may with, provided that the enquiring authority conducting the enquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the gounds thereof. The inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the gounds thereof. The inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. (2) Clause (1) shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. (3) All or any of the provisions of Clause (1) may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements thereof and those requirements can in the opinion of the inquiring authority be waived without injustice to the person charged. 37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation from the inquiring authority are received, the Committee of Management shall after notice to employee meet to consider the report of the proceedings and commendation made and take decision on the case. The employee shall be allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the committee in person to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, as the case may be, fort, approval of action proposed by it." It will be observed that under Regulation 36 (1) it is provided that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the employee charged, and which should be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. The employee will then have an opportunity of putting in his defence and inquiry will thereafter have to be instituted. If one of the major Punishments mentioned in Regulation 31 is proposed to be imposed on the employee, namely, dismissal, removal of discharge, reduction in rank or diminution in emoiuments, prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools has to be obtained. The relevant papers have then, under, Regulation 37, to be set to the District Inspector of Schools. If one of the major Punishments mentioned in Regulation 31 is proposed to be imposed on the employee, namely, dismissal, removal of discharge, reduction in rank or diminution in emoiuments, prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools has to be obtained. The relevant papers have then, under, Regulation 37, to be set to the District Inspector of Schools. The words of Regulation 37 are inter alia are that the committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspector as the case may be, for approval of the action proposed by it. The provisions of Section 16G(b) have been reproduced earlier. They do not empower the District Inspector of Schools to frame additional charges. Consequently, it must be held that the District Inspector of Schools travelled beyond the scope of his power in framing additional charges in respect of which no inquiry had been instituted against the petitioner by the committee of Management. It is, however submitted on behalf of the respondents that when the appeals were filed before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, it was competent for him to look into other material, as in Section 16G (3) it is provided that 'the Regional Deputy Director may after such further enquiry, if any, as he considers necessary, confirm set aside or modify the order, and the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director shall be final.' This argument cannot be accepted, for, the Regional Deputy Director may" hold any further inquiry only in respect of the charges which had been framed against the teacher by the committee of Management. He cannot frame additional charges, or take into consideration any charges, that may have been framed by the District Inspector of Schools without any authority of law. In this connection the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act are also relevant. Under Regulation 36(1) as mentioned earlier the grounds under which it is proposed to take action, have to be reduced in the form of definite charges. It is only in respect of those charges that an enquiry is held and an employee is given an opportunity of defending himself. The interpretation suggested on behalf of the respondents on the provisions of Section 16G(c) cannot be accepted. It is only in respect of those charges that an enquiry is held and an employee is given an opportunity of defending himself. The interpretation suggested on behalf of the respondents on the provisions of Section 16G(c) cannot be accepted. Section 16G(1) provides that the conditions of service of every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by the conditions as may be prescribed by Regulation 36 provides that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action against an employee shall be reduced into the form of definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the employee charged and he has to be given an opportunity of defending himself. If the construction of Section 16G(3) suggested by the respondents was accepted, the provisions of Section 16G(1) could be defeated as the Deputy Director of Education could travel beyond the charges framed by the Management against which the charged employee had a right to defend himself. It must, therefore, be held that any further inquiry by the Regional Deputy Director of Education must be confirmed to such matters as are within the scope of the charges framed against an employee. In the instant case, the Regional Deputy Director of Education having travelled beyond the scope of the charges framed against the petitioner, his order cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition must be allowed in part. The impugned order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education is quashed. The two appeals filed before the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall be reheard by him within a period of two months from the date of the communication of this order to him. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding the appeal, will confine himself to the charges framed against the petitioner by the committee of Management. He may hold a further enquiry, but it shall be confined to the facts connected with the changes framed against the petitioner by the committee of Management. There will be no order as to costs of this writ petition. A copy of this order will be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for compliance. He will decide the appeals within a period of two months of the receipt of this order by him.