R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the committee of Management, Sri Ram Model Inter College, Thora, district Gautam Buddh Nagar seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4th December, 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Buddh Nagar, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : In the district of Gautam Buddh Nagar, there is a College, known as Sri Ram Model Inter college, Thora. It is a recognised Intermediate College and is also aided one. The respondent no. 4, Krishna Kumar, is the Principal of the College. The committee of management in Its meeting held on 19th October, 2003 passed a resolution to place respondent No. 4 under suspension. Consequently, the Manager, vide order of the same date, placed the respondent No. 4 under suspension. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Buddh nagar on 26th October, 2003 for granting approval. It appears that notices were Issued by the district Inspector of Schools and he after considering the matter on record, vide order dated 4th december, 2003 declined to grant approval to the suspension of the respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri V. K. Singh, on behalf of the petitioners, Sri J. C. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri R. S. Kushwaha, on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for the counter-affidavit in accordance with the Rules of court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the order of suspension of the respondent No. 4, has not given any independent reason as to why suspension is not correct. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the order of suspension of the respondent No. 4, has not given any independent reason as to why suspension is not correct. He further submitted that the District Inspector of schools has only mentioned that the proceedings taken by the Committee of Management for placing the respondent No. 4 under suspension is defective and further the charges levelled against the respondent No. 4 has not been established. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpur, khorsena, Ballia through its Manager Sri Dhanush Dhari Singh Yadav v. District Inspector of schools, Ballia and Anr. , 1988 AWC 623, wherein this Court has held that the District Inspector of Schools must record reasons for granting or refusing to grant approval to an order of suspension although a detailed judgment is not required. He further relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Committee of Management, Maharajgunj Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajgunj and Anr. , 1999 (4) AWC 2783 : 2000 (1) LBESR 676 (All), wherein this Court has held that the provisions relating to grant of approval or disapproval of suspension of a teacher including a Principal, as provided under Section 16g (7) and (8) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is not an empty formality. He is required to address himself to the ground on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie, supporting the charges levelled against the Head of the Institution or the teacher, as the case may be. This Court further held that in case the charges of the nature referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 16g are prima facie supported by evidence then in that event the inspector cannot withhold approval. On the other hand, in case the charges are of trivial nature and are not covered by the charges mentioned in Sub-section (5) of Section 16g and/or there are no prima facie documents or material in support of the charges then the Inspector may disapprove of the suspension of the Principal or the teacher, as the case may be. On the other hand, in case the charges are of trivial nature and are not covered by the charges mentioned in Sub-section (5) of Section 16g and/or there are no prima facie documents or material in support of the charges then the Inspector may disapprove of the suspension of the Principal or the teacher, as the case may be. ( 6 ) SRI J. C. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel, however, submitted that the District Inspector of schools while declining to grant approval to the impugned order of suspension of the respondent no. 4, has given adequate reason for the same. He submitted that the District Inspector of schools found that the charges levelled against the respondent No. 4 has not been established and further from an examination of the documents It has been established that the proceedings taken for placing the respondent No. 4 under suspension is defective. He, thus, submitted that the reasons can be discerned in the impugned order and the District Inspector of Schools is not required to give elaborate reasons. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the suspension of the respondent No. 4 has passed the following order : "uparyukta vishay aapke patrank memo / nilamban/2003-04 dtnank 26. 10. 2003 ke dwara preshit abhilekho ki Janch evam prakaran per ki gayee sunwaee se yeh vidit hua hai ki Sri kirshna Kumar Pradhanacharya ke nilamban ke samabandh me lagaye gaye aaropo ki pushti nahi hoti hai. Prakaran ke chhanbeen se yeh bhi spast hua ki pradhanacharya ke nilamban ke sambandh me ki gayee karyawahi bhi trutipurn hai atah preshit abjilekho evam karyawaht ke adhar per pradhanacharya ke nilamgan ka anumodan intermediate Act ki Dhara 16 ki updhara 6 ke antargat pradan nahi kiyajata hai. " ( 8 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid order it is seen that the District Inspector of Schools has not given any reason for arriving at the conclusion as to why the charges have not been proved/established and the proceedings are defective. It is only the conclusion which has been arrived at by him without giving the reasons. " ( 8 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid order it is seen that the District Inspector of Schools has not given any reason for arriving at the conclusion as to why the charges have not been proved/established and the proceedings are defective. It is only the conclusion which has been arrived at by him without giving the reasons. This Court in the case of Committee of management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpur (supra) has held that the district Inspector of Schools examining the papers under subsection (7) of Section 16g acts in supervisory capacity and his decision may have adverse affect on either party, which is before him. Since the party affected adversely by his order Invariably comes to Court, he must record brief reasons for according or refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension passed by a committee of Management although a detailed judgment is not required. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Committee of management, Maharajgunj Inter College (supra), and this Court has held that granting approval or disapproval to suspension of a teacher including a Principal is not an empty formality and the district Inspector of Schools is required to address himself to the ground on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie supporting the charges levelled against the Head of the Institution or the teacher, as the case may be. ( 10 ) APPLYING the principles of law laid down by this Court in the facts of the present case, I find that the District Inspector of Schools has not given any reason as to why the charges have not been established or the enquiry or the proceedings is defective. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 30 days from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. ( 11 ) SRI J. C. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel, submitted that the respondent No. 4 has neither been reinstated nor has been paid his salary. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 30 days from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. ( 11 ) SRI J. C. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel, submitted that the respondent No. 4 has neither been reinstated nor has been paid his salary. Since the order dated 4th December, 2003 has been set aside and the District Inspector of Schools has been directed to pass a fresh order, no separate direction in this regard is required to be passed. However, the respondent No. 4 will be entitled to his salary which is due to him, in accordance with law. ( 12 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. .