JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Respondent No. 4 Shri Ram Shanker Chaubey was appointed as Peon in Shanti Niketan Inter College, Chhatahari, District Siddharth Nagar. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the allegation which among other included submission of forged document at the time of entering into the service. The order of suspension was challenged by means of writ petition No. 51060 of 2005. However the suspension was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools. The Principal of the institution filed Writ Petition No. 51060 of 2005 wherein an interim order was passed on 20.7.2005 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the Principal as well as the employee concerned. The District Inspector of Schools by means of the order dated 18.10.2005 revoked the order of suspension, as a result whereof Shri Ram Shanker Chaubey was restored back in service. The said writ petition has become infructuous in view of the final punishment order being passed, therefore, after summoning the records it is being disposed of today itself accordingly. 2. While the writ petition was still pending the departmental enquiry against Shri Ram Shankar Chaubey was completed and the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Principal of the institution acted upon the said report and ultimately passed an order dated 16.12.2005 whereby the punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Against the order of the Principal, R.S. Chaubey filed an Appeal before the Committee of Management under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Even before expiry of the period prescribed for decision of the Appeal R.S. Chaubey preferred a representation before the District Inspector of Schools against the order of Principal. The District Inspector of Schools by means of the impugned order dated 19.5.2006 has declared that the order of punishment is illegal and therefore, inoperative. R.S. Chaubey has been directed to be permitted to work as Peon. It is against this order that the Principal of the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 5. R.S. Chaubey has been directed to be permitted to work as Peon. It is against this order that the Principal of the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 5. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari reported in 2006 (3) ESC 1765 , has held that no prior approval of District Inspector of Schools is required qua punishment inflicted on a Class IV employee of a recognized Intermediate College. 6. Further the representation filed by the petitioner may not be competent on the date, it was filed, but having regard to the subsequent facts that the Appeal filed was not decided within the stipulated period by the Committee of Management, the representation became competent, after passage of prescribed time and accordingly the District Inspector of Schools became competent to decide the representation. It is, therefore, held that the District Inspector of Schools had power to consider and decide the representation made by R.S. Chaubey and to that extent the order dated 19-5-2006 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 7. This leads to the issue as to whether the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is legally sustainable on merits or not. From a reading of the order dated 19.5.2006 it is apparent that the only reason assigned for setting aside the order of punishment is that the District Inspector of Schools had earlier revoked the suspension qua same charges and therefore, the employee cannot be dismissed on the charges so alleged. 8. In the opinion of the Court the reasons so assigned by the District Inspector of Schools are totally misconceived. Suspension pending enquiry is resorted to if the authority concerned prima facie satisfied that the charges are so serious that they may result in imposition of major penalty if found proved after departmental enquiry. If for some reasons such an order of suspension has been interfered by the District Inspector of Schools it will not mean that the charges are washed out or that no departmental enquiry can be proceeded with. 9. If for some reasons such an order of suspension has been interfered by the District Inspector of Schools it will not mean that the charges are washed out or that no departmental enquiry can be proceeded with. 9. If after departmental enquiry charges are found proved and the management inflicts a punishment the District Inspector of Schools while deciding the representation under Regulation 31 of Chapter III must necessarily advert to the merits of the charges found proved on the basis of the record available and should have recorded his independent findings as to whether on the basis of the evidence on record the final punishment inflicted was legally justified or not. 10. The District Inspector of Schools has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order. It is, therefore, recorded that the order dated 19th May, 2006 cannot be legally sustained on merits. It is accordingly quashed. 11. The District Inspector of Schools shall decide the representation made by Shri R.S. Chaubey a fresh strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the Principal of the institution/Committee of Management by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 12. Writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. ———