JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated the 17th of November, 2006 by which order the learned Single Judge while hearing a writ petition filed against an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 10.5.2006 has issued the following directions : “The Secretary, Secondary Education U.P., Lucknow is directed to take appropriate action against the present District Inspector of Schools and to ensure that the loss caused to the State Government by such deliberate acts of the present District Inspector of Schools is recovered from his personal assets of the District Inspector of Schools himself. The aforesaid exercise may be completed by the Secretary within four weeks from today. A copy of this order be transmitted by the Standing Counsel along with counter affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools today to the Secretary by 30th November, 2006 for necessary action. The action taken by the Secretary must be reported back to the Court by 18th December, 2006.” 3. The submission of the appellant’s Counsel is that the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is on the basis of a recommendation made by the Principal of the institution dated 7.4.2006. The Principal in his letter dated 7.4.2006 intimated that a class-IV post of peon has fallen vacant by retirement on 31.7.2004 and on the said post one Mangala Prasad Yadav who has been working since before is being appointed. After receiving the said recommendation, the District Inspector of Schools has approved the appointment for payment of salary which was subject matter of the challenge of the writ petition. 4. The submission of the appellant’s Counsel after receiving the instruction is that the appellant was a new incumbent who had joined only in January, 2006 as the District Inspector of Schools, acted bona fide on the basis of the recommendation received from the Principal. He submits that the detailed facts pertaining to all aspect of the matter including the restraint order of the State Government dated 19.12.2000 was noted in the order and the action of the Principal was approved. He submits that the detailed facts pertaining to all aspect of the matter including the restraint order of the State Government dated 19.12.2000 was noted in the order and the action of the Principal was approved. He submits that even if the order dated 10.5.2006 is not in accordance with law and the order was incorrect that ipso facto do not lead to the presumption that the order was passed with any ulterior motive or was a mala fide action. He submits that even the learned Single Judge has not recorded any such finding that the order is mala fide. 5. The submission is that every error committed by an officer in discharge of his official duty is not misconduct and does not lead to a penal action. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the order and has contended that the order of the Inspector dated 10.5.2006 being erroneous, no error has been committed in directing for action against the District Inspector of Schools. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, specially, the fact that the appellant has joined the office only in the month of January, 2006 as has been stated before us on instructions received by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate from Mr. Rajnish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing with him, we have to give some latitude to the appellant. The order records the facts and is based on the recommendation of the Principal who is the appointing authority of the class-IV employee. It may be true that the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is not in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under Chapter-Ill, Rules 101 to 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 but without proper inquiry/finding cannot be recorded as to whether any misconduct was committed by the appellant. 9. We are of the view that ends of justice will serve in modifying the directions of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.11.2006 to the effect that the matter be brought into notice of the Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow who after an appropriate inquiry will take an appropriate decision. 9. We are of the view that ends of justice will serve in modifying the directions of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.11.2006 to the effect that the matter be brought into notice of the Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow who after an appropriate inquiry will take an appropriate decision. The impugned order dated 17.11.2006 is modified to that extent only, leaving open to the Secretary to pass an appropriate order after looking into the matter and holding such inquiry as may be necessary in accordance with law. 10. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. ———