JUDGMENT 1. Bhawani Balika Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School is an aided and recognised institution which imparts education to girls only. The Management Committee of the, institution employed Mahesh Kumar Sharma as a clerk in the office. A number of complaints were received against Mahesh Kumar Sharma and a charge sheet was issued to him and a departmental disciplinary enquiry was held. On the conclusion of the enquiry the Committee of Management, by its resolution dated 11.9.75,held that the charges were fully proved against the clerk and as such his services be terminated. The resolution, further, directed for obtaining the approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. Papers were, accordingly, forwarded to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools for approval, who refused to accord approval by the order dated 19.3.76 on the ground that the clerk concerned was not afforded any opportunity of defence. Before the Regional Inspectress could pass the order, the Management by its order dated 13.3.76 terminated the services of Mahesh Kumar Sharma. The Committee of Management preferred an appeal before the Joint Director of Education against the order of the Regional Inspectress refusing to accord approval. The Joint Director of Education (women)partly allowed the appeal of the Management on the finding that the adequate opportunity of defence had been afforded, to Mahesh Kumar Sharma and charges against him were fully proved but the punishment of termination of service was substituted by a minor punishment of stopping the increments for two years. Aggrieved, the Committee of Management filed this writ petition under Article 226 challenging the orders of the Regional Inspectress and the Joint Director of Education. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder . the Committee of Management was not required to obtain prior approval of the Regional Inspectress for terminating the services of the clerk and as such the Regional Inspectress and the Joint Director, both, have committed error in taking, a contrary view. I .find no merit in this contention. It is true that prior to 1975 it, was not obligatory for the Committee of Management to obtain approval from the Regional Inspeccress or the District Inspector of Schools for terminating the services of a nonteaching employee; but amendments were made by U.P. Act 1975. I .find no merit in this contention. It is true that prior to 1975 it, was not obligatory for the Committee of Management to obtain approval from the Regional Inspeccress or the District Inspector of Schools for terminating the services of a nonteaching employee; but amendments were made by U.P. Act 1975. The amended section 16G (1) lays down that every person employed in a recognized 'institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations. In pursuance to the amended section 16G(1), Regulation 44 was amended, requiring the management of an institution to obtain prior approval of dismissal or termination of service of a ministerial employee, including clerk and librarian, from the Regional Inspectress of Schoolsor the District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be. In view of theseprovisions it is amply clear that the services of a clerk employed in a recognized institution cannot be dispensed with by, the Management unless prior approval of the same is obtained from the Regional Inspectress or the District Inspector of Schools. An order of termination of service without obtaining prior approval would be rendered void. From the material on record it is evident that the petitioner, Management, had terminated the services of respondent no. 3 without obtaining the approval of the Regional Inspectress. The order of termination has, therefore, rightly been held to be void by the Joint Director of Education. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that since the Regional Inspectress failed to take decision on the question of grant of approval within six weeks of the receipt of the proposal sent to her by the Management, the approval stood automatically granted after the expiry of six weeks. He placed reliance on Regulation 44 which provides that the Regional Inspectress shall communicate her decision to the management within six weeks of the receipt of its proposal. .It is relevant to point out that Regulation 44 does not provide for any legal fiction to arise on the expiry of six weeks. Regulation 44 merely requires the Regional Inspectress to pass orders on the question of approval within six weeks, and it does not prescribe any result or penalty if no orders are passed within a period of six weeks. Regulation 44 is not mandatory, instead it is directory. In Bhairo Nath Uchtar Madliyamik Vidyalaya v.. Regulation 44 merely requires the Regional Inspectress to pass orders on the question of approval within six weeks, and it does not prescribe any result or penalty if no orders are passed within a period of six weeks. Regulation 44 is not mandatory, instead it is directory. In Bhairo Nath Uchtar Madliyamik Vidyalaya v.. Markandey Singh and another, 1976 Allahabad Weekly Cases 679, a Division Bench of this Court held that Regulation 44 was not mandatory and if no specific orders were passed by the Regional Inspectress or the District Inspector, according approval within six weeks, the Management cannot proceed on the assumption that on expiry of six weeks, approval should be deemed to have been granted. I, therefore, find no merit in the petitioner's contention. 4. Learned counsel then urged that the Joint Director, Education, exceeded her authority in modifying the punishment awarded by the Management to the erring clerk. The learned counsel urged that the Joint Director was not invested with any power to, modify the punishment awarded by the Management. This contention appears to be correct. Prior .to February, 1978, the Regulations framed under the Act did not contain any provision conferring power on the appellate authority to interfere with the order of the Management on the question of quantum of punishment. It appears that the rulemaking authority realised this lacuna and as such, Regulation 44A was framed and enforced by a notification dated 27th February, 1978. Under the newly added Regulation 44A the Regional Inspectress of Schools, as well as the appellate authority, both have been invested with power to interfere with the order of the Management on the question of quantum of punishment also. Prior to framing of the Regulation 44A the Regional Inspectress as well as the appellate authority, both were required to ensure that the employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were taken, was afforded adequate opportunity of defence, in accordance with the Regulations. If the Regional Inspectress or the appellate authority found in a particular case that no adequate opportunity was given, they were entitled to set aside that order or refuse to grant approval. But none of the t to authorities enjoyed any power to interfere with the quantum of punishment although now, after the amendment, the authorities have been invested with such a power. But none of the t to authorities enjoyed any power to interfere with the quantum of punishment although now, after the amendment, the authorities have been invested with such a power. In the instant case the appellate authority passed the impugned order on 15th October, 1976, much before the enforcement of. Regulation 44A. As noted earlier, the appellate authority held that the respondent no. 3, Mahesh Kumar Sharma, had been afforded adequate opportunity of defence and the charges against him were fully proved. But, inspite of this finding the appellate authority interfered with the Management's proposal of terminating services on the ground of quantum of punishment. Since the appellate authority had no power to interfere on the question of quantum of punishment, its order is liable to be quashed. 5. The situation which has emerged from the above discussion is that the respondent no. 3 was given adequate opportunity of defence and the charges were held to have been proved against him but the termination of his services have been rendered void as the Management had failed lo obtain prior approval of the Regional Inspectress. As the order of the Joint Director of Education is being quashed partly, it will be open to the Management to reconsider the question and submit its proposal to the Regional Inspectress, for approval who will decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulation. I would like to make it clear that the order of termination has rightly been held to be void by the appellate authority and the respondent no. 3 shall be treated to continue in service and he will be entitled to his salary and other benefits. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The orders of the Regional Inspectress and the Joint Director of Education (Women) are quashed in so far as it modifies the punishment. The parties .shall bear, their own costs. [Appeal allowed]