M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 14-8-95 passed by the District Inspec tor of Schools, Mirzapur, Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 2. I heard Shri G. K. Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare for respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel also. 3. The respondent No. 2 was function ing as ad hoc Principal of the Institution in question. He was placed under suspension by order dated 26-6-95 vide Annexure 1 to the petition and by another order passed on the same date, he was directed to hand over charge of the post of Principal to Hemdutt Tripathi vide Annexure 2 to the petition. The Manager of the institution informed the District Inspector of Schools about this suspension and by letter dated 5-7-95 he submitted the relevant documents with the letter to the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act. A true copy of the letter dated 5-7-91 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 4. Subsequently by order dated 14-8-95 the District Inspector of Schools disap proved the suspension of respondent No. 2. Aggrieved this petition has been filed by the management. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and I have heard learned counsel, for parties. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14-8-95 shows that the District In spector of Schools has examined all the al legations against the petitioner and prima facie found that no material has been sub mitted by the petitioner in support of the allegation against respondent No. 2. The District Inspector of Schools has dealt with each of the charges and has recorded his finding there on. As regards charge No. 1 he has held that as regards, the allegation of submitting a false statement, the same was signed by the Manager also and hence the Principal alone cannot be blamed. As regards charge No. 2 he has observed that there is nothing to show that the Principal was guilty of insubordination in accepting certain funds. As regards, charge No. 3 he has observed that the cheques has to be signed by the Manager also and moreover it is not such a serious, charge. As regards charge Nos. 4 to 7, he has observed that no material has been submitted by the manage ment to justify these charges. 7. As regards, charge No. 3 he has observed that the cheques has to be signed by the Manager also and moreover it is not such a serious, charge. As regards charge Nos. 4 to 7, he has observed that no material has been submitted by the manage ment to justify these charges. 7. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, invited by attention to Regulation 39 (1) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which states: "39. (1) The report regarding the suspen sion 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 documents:- (a) the name of the person suspended along with particulars of the post (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 suspen sion, e. g. temporary, permanent or officiating; (b) a certified copy of the report on the basis of which such person was last confirmed or al lowed to cross efficiency bar, whichever is later; (c) details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended; (d) certified copies of the complaints, reports and enquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended. (e) certified copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending such per son; (f) certified copy of the order of suspension issued to such person; (g) in case person was suspended previously also, details of the charges on which and the period for which he was suspended on previous occasions accompanied by certified copies of the orders on the basis of which he was reinstated. " 8. A perusal of the above regulation shows that when the Management applies under Section 16-G (5) for approval of the suspension, then the relevant documents must accompany the said application. In the present case that has not done. 9. On the other hand Shri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to Annexure 5 to the writ petition which is an order dated 12-7-95 stating that both parties prayed for time to file docu ments. 10. In the present case that has not done. 9. On the other hand Shri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to Annexure 5 to the writ petition which is an order dated 12-7-95 stating that both parties prayed for time to file docu ments. 10. It appears that the case was heard on 11-7-95, but the relevant documents were not filed by the management. The management should have filed whatever documents it wanted to rely upon along with its application under Section 16-G (5), but did not do so. Even up to 14-8-95 when the impugned order was passed the manage ment had not filed the documents it wanted to rely upon, hence the management cannot complain that it was not given opportunity to file relevant documents on which it wanted to rely upon. 11. The findings of the District Inspec tor of Schools in the impugned order are findings of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. The writ peti tion is, therefore, dismissed. However, I direct that the enquiry against the respon dent No. 2 be completed with in three months from today. Petition dismissed. .