JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel Sri B.N. Singh for the appellant and Sri P.S. Baghel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4. 2. By this appeal the Management of an Intermediate College assails the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the approval to the suspension of the respondent No. 1 by the District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar has been set aside and the DIOS has been directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 3. Sri B.N. Singh learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charges were serious enough so as to warrant disciplinary action which has been concluded through an enquiry and the papers have been submitted to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board for approval. He submits that in view of this, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that there were prima facie charges that were grave enough to take serious action against the respondents and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. 4. Sri Baghel learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the District Inspector of Schools has exceeded his jurisdiction by proceeding to delve into the gravity of the charges itself and recorded findings of guilt which is beyond the scope of the powers of the District Inspector of Schools as prescribed under Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in remitting the matter back to the District Inspector of Schools for further action in accordance with the provisions of Act and the regulations framed thereunder and to pass a fresh order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the respondent No. 1 was suspended on 15th February, 2009 whereafter orders were passed revoking the suspension and the same became subject-matter of challenge by the Committee of Management in writ petition No. 23261 of 2009. The learned Single Judge set aside the order vide judgment dated 6th May, 2009 and called upon the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order and allowed the respondent No. 1 to receive full salary. The learned Single Judge set aside the order vide judgment dated 6th May, 2009 and called upon the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order and allowed the respondent No. 1 to receive full salary. The matter was taken up by the District Inspector of Schools whereafter the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed running into more than 35 pages and recording findings in relation to the allegations made against the respondent No. 1, this time approving the order of suspension. 6. From the records, we find that the District Inspector of Schools has exceeded his jurisdiction by recording findings on the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 which has been rightly found to be beyond his jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. 7. Even otherwise, we called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to point out the seriousness of the charges so as to allow this Court to examine the contentions so raised on behalf of the appellant. We find that the charges have been dealt with by the District Inspector of Schools in a manner as if the guilt had already been established. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was right in having remitted the matter back to record prima facie findings with regard to the allegations in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1. 8. Apart from this we also find that the manner in which the enquiry has been proceeded raises serious doubts as to the procedure so adopted. The date fixed for the enquiry was 22nd March, 2009 on which date the respondent No. 1 had been called upon to appear and give a reply between 11 a.m. to 12 noon. The allegation is that the respondent No. 1 inspite of notice did not appear and therefore the enquiry proceeded on the same day. The respondent No. 1 had already submitted her reply both to the charge-sheet as well as the supplementary charge-sheet. 9. We find from that records that the inquiry report was prepared on the same day on 22nd March, 2009. Prima facie, the said proceedings do not indicate the holding of any further enquiry including the examination of witnesses etc. 10. The respondent No. 1 had already submitted her reply both to the charge-sheet as well as the supplementary charge-sheet. 9. We find from that records that the inquiry report was prepared on the same day on 22nd March, 2009. Prima facie, the said proceedings do not indicate the holding of any further enquiry including the examination of witnesses etc. 10. In such circumstances to hold the respondent No. 1 guilty and the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools to that effect was patently beyond his jurisdiction and, therefore, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in setting aside the order impugned. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited two decisions of the Apex Court, AIR 1979 SC 1247 (Shyam Lal Yadav and others v. Smt. Kusum Dhawan and others, and in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others v. Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, to contend that once the charges are serious enough then in this situation where the enquiry has been concluded an employee should not be allowed to serve in the institution. 12. It is for this reason we went into the proceedings adopted by the Committee of Management in order to find out about the apparent fairness of the enquiry proceedings held by the appellant. Accordingly we prima facie find that the manner in which the Management has proceeded to hold and conclude the enquiry does not inspire confidence. The gravity of the charge in the outcome of the enquiry, where the enquiry itself is within the realm of serious dispute, the judgments relied on will not come to the aid of the appellant. 13. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. —————