JUDGMENT : 1. This special appeal has been preferred under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge dated 11.1.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38875 of 1996. 2. At the outset, Sri R.S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court on the ground that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 12 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules) and thus the special appeal would not lie under the Rules of the Court. In support of the above preliminary objection reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. District Inspector of Schools and Others, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 24. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the services of contesting Respondent No. 3 are governed by U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 1978 Rules). He further submitted that under 1978 Rules, no appeal is provided against the order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari refusing to grant approval to the order of termination and thus the appeal would be maintainable. It has further been submitted that even though the Committee of Management filed an appeal before the Director of Education (Basic), the same cannot be treated as a statutory appeal and any decision thereon is non est. It has further been submitted that in the absence of any statutory appeal having been provided under the Rules, the appeal filed by the Committee of Management under wrong advice at best can be treated to be a representation and any decision thereon cannot be said to have trappings of judgment or award of a Tribunal or statutory arbitrator made under the purported exercise of jurisdiction under any U.P. Act or any Central Act with respect to the matters enumerated in the State List or concurrent list in the seventh schedule of the Constitution, hence special appeal would be maintainable. 3. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of rival parties. 4. 3. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of rival parties. 4. Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court provides for special appeal before a Division Bench from the judgment of learned single Judge. The said provision reads as under: "5. Special Appeal - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a Tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrary made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the concurrent list in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge." 5. Thus, the answer to the question of maintainability of the present special appeal depends upon the availability of the right to appeal at the behest of the Committee of Management against order or decision of Basic Shiksha Adhikari denying approval to the punishment awarded to the headmaster or teacher of the institution in question. 6. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 3 regarding maintainability of the appeal is based on Rule 12 of 1975 Rules, which confers a right to appeal on the teachers as well as management against the order of the District Basic Education Officer. 6. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 3 regarding maintainability of the appeal is based on Rule 12 of 1975 Rules, which confers a right to appeal on the teachers as well as management against the order of the District Basic Education Officer. A perusal of 1975 Rules goes to show that the same are applicable to Junior Basic School which has been defined under the definition clause as an institution other than high schools or intermediate colleges imparting education upto Class V. Admittedly, the institution in question is a recognised Junior High School managed by a private management and is imparting education to boys and girls from Class VI to Class VIII. 1978 Rules defines Junior High School as an institution other than High School or Intermediate College imparting education to boys and girls or both from Class VI to Class VIII (inclusive). Since, the institution is imparting education from Class VI to Class VIII as such is covered under the definition of institution as contained in 1978 Rules and obviously would be governed by said Rules. Rules 16 of 1978 Rules provides for disciplinary proceedings and reads as under: 16. Disciplinary proceedings - In respect of disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher as the case may be, of a recognized school shall be governed by the rules applicable to Headmaster and Assistant Teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board. 7. In view of aforesaid rule, the disciplinary proceedings and punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings on a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher governed by 1978 Rules, shall be governed by rules applicable to Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board. The Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of Basic School established or managed by the Board are governed by U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Rules). Rule 5 of 1973 Rules provides for an appeal against the order passed by appointing authority inflicting punishment upon any officer, teacher or other employee of the Board before the appellate authority mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule. The said Rule reads as under: 5. Rule 5 of 1973 Rules provides for an appeal against the order passed by appointing authority inflicting punishment upon any officer, teacher or other employee of the Board before the appellate authority mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule. The said Rule reads as under: 5. Appeal - (1) An appeal shall lie from an order passed by the appointing authority in respect of the post mentioned in Column 1 or the Schedule appended to these rules, imposing upon any officer, teacher or other employee of the Board and of the penalties mentioned below to the appellate authority mentioned in Column 3 of the said Schedule: (a) reduction to a lower post or time-scale to a lower stage in a time-scale. (b) removal from service of the Board which does not disqualify for future employment. (c) dismissal from the service of the Board, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. (2) In case of other penalties against which no appeal provided in this rule, the punished officer, teacher or other employees of the Board may make a representation against the imposition of any of these penalties to such officer as the Director of Education (Basic) may be general orders from time to time specify in this behalf. (3) The procedure laid down in the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible be followed in disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations under these Rules. 8. A perusal of said Rule goes to show that right to appeal has only been conferred on teachers and employees. These Rules are applicable to the employees of the Board as well as teachers and other employees of the institution which are managed and administered by U.P. Basic Education Board directly. They are not institutions managed privately by the Committee of Management constituted under their own bye laws and for this reason the Rules do not contain any provision conferring any right of appeal on the management and such right has only been provided to the employees and teachers. Provision of appeal contained in 1973 Rules, have been made applicable to 1978 Rules by way of reference. Provision of appeal contained in 1973 Rules, have been made applicable to 1978 Rules by way of reference. Since, the rule which has been borrowed by way of reference does not confer any right of appeal on the appointing authority, no right of appeal would be available to the Committee of Management under 1978 Rules, against an order of Basic Education Officer disapproving the action taken by the management imposing punishment upon Headmaster and teachers of the institution. 9. A right to appeal is not an inherent right but is one created and conferred by a statutory provision. The proposition is well-settled by various pronouncements, reference may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Others, (1999) 2 AWC 1147 wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been observed as under: 10. A right of appeal is a creature of statute. A litigant does not have any inherent right to prefer an appeal against, an order unless such a right is conferred on the litigant by law. This proposition is well-settled in law and since been reiterated by the Apex Court in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 8 . 10. From perusal of aforesaid facts and the relevant rules, it is evident that no appeal is provided to the Committee of Management against an order passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari refusing to grant approval to the punishment. The proposition being well-settled that right to appeal is a creature of statute and in the absence of any provision in the statute conferring such a right, appeal would not lie. Merely by filing an application/ representation by the Committee of Management before the Director, Basic Education and labelling it as an appeal, it would not become appeal nor it would confer any appellate jurisdiction upon Director to decide the issue regarding refusing to grant approval. 11. Merely by filing an application/ representation by the Committee of Management before the Director, Basic Education and labelling it as an appeal, it would not become appeal nor it would confer any appellate jurisdiction upon Director to decide the issue regarding refusing to grant approval. 11. However, the Director, being superior authority and being vested with administrative control over his subordinates, the order passed by him on the representation of the Committee of Management at the best, could be an administrative order in exercise of executive control over his subordinates, but in any view of the matter it cannot be termed to be an order or judgment by a Tribunal or statutory arbitrator in exercise of jurisdiction under any U.P. Act or any Central Act in respect of the matters enumerated in the State list or concurrent list of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, in the absence of any right conferred on the management to prefer appeal against the order disapproving punishment inflicted on contesting Respondent No. 3, it is difficult to hold that the decision of the Director on the application/representation of the Appellant was passed on a statutory appeal. 12. Reliance placed by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 on the ratio of decision in the case of Sita Ram (supra) is also totally mis-founded and is of no help to him. In the said case, the dispute was with regard to seniority list of Lectures of Inter College governed by U.P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder. Under Regulation 3(1) (f) an appeal is provided before the Inspector of Schools against the decision of Committee of Management deciding the seniority dispute of teachers of the institution. In view of the aforesaid facts, the case relied upon by learned Counsel for contesting Respondent in support of his contention is clearly distinguishable on facts and is of no help to him. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, preliminary objection raised on behalf of contesting Respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal is liable to be rejected. 14. Now coming to the merit of appeal. The submission raised on behalf of the Appellant is that a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 in respect of serious charges of misconduct including embezzlement of funds. A charge-sheet was accordingly served on him on 4.2.1988. 14. Now coming to the merit of appeal. The submission raised on behalf of the Appellant is that a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 in respect of serious charges of misconduct including embezzlement of funds. A charge-sheet was accordingly served on him on 4.2.1988. However, he did not submit any reply to the charges either in the enquiry or before the committee of management nor participated in the proceedings. The enquiry, therefore, was concluded and the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 2.6.1988, dismissed him from service. However, Respondent No. 2, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria, refused to grant approval vide order dated 5/6.8.1988. The said order was ultimately set aside by the Director of Education, Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 22.10.1996. 15. It has also been stated that an F.I.R. was also lodged on 29.5.1988 against the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 u/s 406/409, I.P.C. and the police after necessary investigation, submitted charge-sheet in the Court of IVth Munsif Magistrate, Deoria. Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 was thereafter arrested on 20.6.1988 and remained in jail till 10.7.1988. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble single Judge set aside the order of termination by the judgment under appeal only on the ground that the enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the documents relied upon in support of the charges were not furnished to the delinquent Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 nor he was given adequate opportunity to lead evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses. It is submitted by Sri W.H. Khan that Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 was served with the notice and reasonable opportunity was afforded but he did not avail the same and, therefore, now cannot complain that the proceeding was undertaken without giving adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry or to lead evidence. It has further been submitted that even where the departmental proceeding is found to have not been conducted in accordance with law and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration, the delinquent employee till the conclusion of the proceeding should be deemed to continue under suspension. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 153 . 16. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 153 . 16. We have considered the submissions made by Sri W.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner-Respondent No. 3. No material has been brought on record to show nor it is apparent from the report of the Enquiry Officer that adequate opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 and the documents in support of the charges were served on him nor there is any material on record to show that he was offered opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges. The report of the Enquiry Officer does not refer to any evidence from which it could be inferred that the charges stood proved and, therefore, we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Hon'ble single Judge that the proceeding was concluded in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the second contention made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant has force. The charges being serious and pertaining to embezzlement, it would not be appropriate that the Petitioner should be allowed to continue as Head Master of the institution giving a chance to tamper with the evidence or record of the institution. We are, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate in the ends of justice that till the conclusion of departmental proceeding and decision by the disciplinary authority, the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 shall not be allowed to continue to function as Head Master of the institution and shall be deemed to be under suspension. Our view is also supported by the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India and Others (supra). Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that endeavour would be made to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months. Sri Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner-Respondent No. 3, also states that the Respondent shall co-operate in the early disposal of the proceeding. 17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that endeavour would be made to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months. Sri Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner-Respondent No. 3, also states that the Respondent shall co-operate in the early disposal of the proceeding. 17. We, therefore, having regard to the submissions made and also having regard to the facts of the case, modify the judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge to the extent that the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Appellant shall provide all the documents relied upon in support of the charges to the delinquent Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 within two weeks from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order and thereafter the Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 shall give reply to the charges within another two weeks thereafter and the proceeding shall be concluded within two months thereafter. During the pendency of the proceeding and till the decision of the disciplinary authority, Petitioner-Respondent No. 3 shall remain under suspension and shall only be entitled to receive subsistence allowance as per Rules. 18. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge, the writ petition and the special appeal stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.