Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 have stated that at this stage, they do not propose to file any counter affidavit to this writ petition. Accordingly this matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties. The Committee of Management of the institution has come up against the order dated 3rd March, 2013 whereby the proposal for dispensing the services of respondent No. 4 as the Head of the institution has been disapproved and the Committee has been obliged to reinstate the respondent No. 4 in service. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the institution is an Inter College and unaided, and the appointment of respondent No. 4 is under the provisions Section 7-AA of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Accordingly the service conditions of such employees are governed by the Government Order dated 10.8.2001. The aforesaid facts are undisputed. The charges leveled by the petitioner-committee were several but the main charge against respondent No. 4 was setting up a rival Committee of the Management through his wife-Urmila Devi. The contention of the petitioner-committee is that after the representations and the submissions were made, the impugned order has been passed on the ground that Clause-IX of the Government Order dated 10.8.2001 has been violated, and, since there is a procedural violation in dispensing with the services of the respondent No. 4, the proposal is invalid. There is also a finding on the fact that the petitioner-committee did not provide necessary documents relating to the enquiry that is alleged to have been held against the respondent No. 4. Sri K. Ajit contends that the said ground was untenable and even if there was any alleged deficiency, the petitioner-committee ought to have been asked to furnish the same before the order was passed on the said ground. He further submits that once respondent No. 4 had chosen to raise this objection, it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to have non suited the petitioner-committee on this issue. He further submits that once respondent No. 4 had chosen to raise this objection, it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to have non suited the petitioner-committee on this issue. Sri K. Ajit has submitted that these documents were very much available and the appointment of respondent No. 4 has been disapproved after submission of the report and passing of the resolution of the Committee of Management and the charges against respondent No. 4 were fully proved. As a matter of fact, wife of the respondent No. 4 is still contesting the issue relating to the Committee of Management. Without entering into the merits of the charges, the only ground on which the impugned oreder has been passed is violation of Clause-IX of the Government Order of 2001. Respondent No. 4 submits that when no documents were provided, there was no material to arrive at any other conclusion. He even otherwise submits that as a matter of fact, the entire alleged enquiry was non existent and no enquiry at all has been held. The impugned order on a perusal nowhere records that no such enquiry was held. No documents were provided for in support of its contention by the Committee of Management. Even if that was so, the petitioner-committee could have been called upon by the District Inspector of Schools to provide the said information. The District Inspector of Schools notices this deficiency but did not put the petitioner-committee to notice to submit the same. There was no objection by the respondent No. 4 on this account. In such a situation, the petitioner-committee had no opportunity to meet this objection which has been made the basis of the passing of the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from the above, the issue relating to the merits of the charges ought to have been examined keeping in view the allegations of the petitioner-committee about the involvement of respondent No. 4 as a rival committee of management. This aspect has found place in the findings by the District Inspector of School. Thus the impugned order is unsustainable. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 3.3.2013 is quashed. _____________