JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioners, claiming to be the committee of management and manager of Salik Ram Gram Sabha Junior High School, Karaulia, Badaun (here-in-after referred to as the school), have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 2-6-1992, passed by the Lekha Adhikari for single operation of the school account. 2. The Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the Petitioner have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply there-to. An application for impleadment of Smt. Muizza Khatoon has been made through Sri S.C. Budhwar. Although I have not impleaded her finally but I have heard Sri Budhwar. 3. The impugned order suffers from three intimates ,namely, (i) order for single operation of the school account has been passed by the Lekha Adhikari under the direction of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, (ii) conditions precedent for passing such an order, as provided by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) have not been fulfilled, and (iii) the order has been passed without giving any notice/opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners. 4. It is clear from the reading of the impugned order that the Lekha Adhikari had passed it in view of the direction dated 1-6-1992 issued by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Badaun. Under the second proviso of section 5(1) of the Act, the Education Officer has been empowered to order for single operation of the school account by himself or by any other officer nominated by him. The Education Officer has been defined to mean the District Basic Education Officer and includes any other officer authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of Education Officer under the Act. It is not disputed that the Lekha Adhikari is the officer, who has been authorised by the State Government to perform the functions as Education Officer and as such, he was empowered to pass an order for single operation of the school account. It is thus apparent that both the District Education Officer and the Lekha Adhikari can perform the power under the second proviso; but one cannot direct the other to pass that order. It is thus apparent that both the District Education Officer and the Lekha Adhikari can perform the power under the second proviso; but one cannot direct the other to pass that order. In the instant case in the impugned order it has been categorically mentioned that under the direction of the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun the order for single operation of the school account has been passed. When the Lekha Adhikari has himself been authorised to pass the impugned order for single operation, he should not have acted solely on the direction of the District Basic Education Officer. He should have satisfied himself before passing the impugned order as to whether the conditions for passing such order are there. Lekha Adhikari having failed to apply his own mind and having acted under the direction of the District Basic Education Officer the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Under the second proviso of section 5 of the Act the order for single operation can be passed only if difficulty arises in disbursement of salary of teachers and other employees due to any default of management. The impugned order does not mention existence of any such difficulty in disbursement of salary of the teachers and other employees of the school. Only vague allegations about the financial irregularities and exploitation of employees by the Petitioner have been made. The order for single operation cannot be passed on such vague allegations. It was incumbent on the Lekha Adhikari to apply his mind regarding the difficulty in payment of salary and if he was satisfied about those difficulties, he should have passed the order for single operation. 6. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been mentioned that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners However, this paragraph has been sworn on legal advice and as such, cannot be relied upon. learned Counsel for the Petitioners has however, offered to file a supplementary affidavit for correcting the verification of the writ petition ; but in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, supplementary affidavit is not required. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that a notice dated 12-5-1991, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, was given to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that a notice dated 12-5-1991, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, was given to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. According-to Annexure I, the Petitioners were directed to sent the salary bills for the months of March and April, 1992 and in this connection the explanation for delay in sending the bills was called for. It was further mentioned therein that in the absence of any explanation, action will be taken u/s 5(1) of the Act. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that bills for March and April, 1992 have already been submitted by them. It is not necessary to go into this question. If the Lekha Adhikari was not satisfied with the explanation or no explanation was furnished by the Petitioners, he should have initiated proceedings under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act by issuing a notice containing material particulars to the Petitioners and asking them to show cause why order for single operation be not passed. Nothing of the kind has been done. Notice dated 12-5-1991 (Annexure I to the counter affidavit) cannot be regarded as notice u/s 5 of the Act. 7. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 2-6-1992 (Annexure I to the writ petition) is quashed.