JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Anil Bhushan advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M. D. Singh ‘Shekhar’ advocate on behalf of the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, R. P. Inter College, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad through its Manager for quashing the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur dated 3rd May, 2004, whereby in exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges Payment of Salaries of (Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971, the Committee of Management of the institution has been superseded and authorised controller has been appointed. 3. On behalf of petitioner it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner institution to the show cause notice issued by the Joint Director of Education. It is submitted that because of non-consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the order is rendered as nullity and the remedy of appeal as provided for under Section 7 of the Payment of Salaries Act is rendered illusiary. 4. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy and, therefore, no interference is called for in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the reply submitted by the management was vague and ample opportunity was afforded to management to submit its reply to the various allegations made in the show cause notice. The order has been passed in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Lastly it is contended that the default still exists and have not been complied with. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 6. So far as the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner with regards to availability of the alternative remedy to the petitioner is concerned, reference may be had to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1302 (paras 4 and 5), wherein it has been held that if the reasons are not assigned in the order, appeal is a mere formality. 7. 7. From the show cause notice issued to petitioner, which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition as well as reply submitted thereto by the petitioner, which has been enclosed as Annexures-5 and 6, as well as from the order impugned passed by the Joint Director of Education, this Court is satisfied that the explanation furnished by the petitioner has not been considered at all while passing the impugned order. The Joint Director of Education has merely referred to the charges and has come to conclusion that the explanation of the petitioner, on the basis of the report obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, was not satisfactory. 8. It was mandatory for the Joint Director of Education to have considered the objection submitted by the Committee of Management to the show cause notice. Reference may be had to Section 6 (2) of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, which mandates the Regional Joint Director of Education to consider the cause shown by the management and it is only thereafter to come to a conclusion as to whether the cause shown is sufficient or not. Section 6 (2) is being quoted hereunder : “6 (2) On receipt of a recommendation under sub-section (1) the Regional Deputy Director, Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said direction or provision or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended.” 9. For consideration of the cause shown by the management it is necessary that the Regional Joint Director of Education should have considered the objection/explanation furnished by the management and should have dealt with explanation in the impugned order before coming to conclusion that the explanation furnished by the management is not satisfactory. 10. As has already been stated above, the reply filed by the management have not been taken notice in the impugned order. There is nothing in the impugned order to suggest that the explanation furnished by the management in respect of individual charges was, in any way, unsatisfactory so as to justify the order of exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the Payment of Salaries Act. 11. It is not denied by the petitioner that notice was issued and served. There is nothing in the impugned order to suggest that the explanation furnished by the management in respect of individual charges was, in any way, unsatisfactory so as to justify the order of exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the Payment of Salaries Act. 11. It is not denied by the petitioner that notice was issued and served. However, mere affording of opportunity of hearing is not sufficient to pass the order impugned, as the Joint Director of Education was bound to consider the explanation furnished by the management and to pass order after such consideration only, which was not being done. The question as to whether reply submitted by the management was vague or not is a question to be decided by the Joint Director of Education. 12. Since in the order impugned the Joint Director of Education has not recorded any reasons for disagreeing with the reply submitted by the management, the order dated 5.3.2004 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 13. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the Joint Director of Education shall pass a fresh reasoned order, after considering the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, preferably within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 14. With these observations, writ petition is allowed.