JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Committee of Management Azad Hind Inter College, Karhal Mainpuri through its Manager has approached this Court with a request to quash the order dated 15.5.2013 wherein District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri has proceeded to disapprove the resolution of suspension dated 15.5.2013. Background of the case is that Azad Hind Inter College Karhal Mainpuri is a recognised and aided institution under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and payment to the staff teaching and non-teaching is made under the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The service conditions of the Teachers are governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act and Rules framed thereunder. 2. Karunesh Jauhari, respondent No. 3 has been performing and discharging duty as Principal, and it appears that Committee of Management of the institution concerned on 13.5.2013 place him under suspension and thereafter in consonance with the provision as contained under Chapter III Regulation 39 of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, papers in question have been transmitted for the purposes of approval being accorded. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools, district Mainpuri has heard the matter on 3.6.2013 and then he has proceeded to disapprove the charges in question on the ground that same are not so serious. At this juncture Committee of Management is before this Court and is contending that issues raised by the parties have not at all been considered in its correct prospective and unreasoned decision has been taken. 3. Sri. K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the District Inspector of Schools has erred in law in not giving cogent reason in disapproving the resolution whereas there are serious charges which prompted the Managing Committee of the institution to invoke and exercise its authority of suspension, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 4. 4. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena Advocate, on the other hand contended that rightful order has been passed in the present case and entire action of the Managing Committee is motivated one and as of now as more than 60 days period have elapsed and suspension order has not been approved till date as such Lala Ram has every right to function and receives salary as Principal. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, Section 16-G which deals with conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees including suspension and Chapter III Regulation 39 which deals with transmission of report of suspension of District Inspector Schools, Allahabad, being relevant extract of the same are being looked into. Section 16(G) (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management— (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or © any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (6) Where any Head of institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act,1975, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commencement, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspension in any other case, and the report shall contain such particulars as maybe prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents. (7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. (8) If, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section. (9) All appeals pending before the Deputy Director of Education (women) immediately before the commencement of this sub-section shall be transferred to the Joint Di8rector of Education (Women) for disposal. Provided that where the Deputy Director of Education (Women) has already commenced the hearing of any such appeal before the commencement of this sub-section, the appeal shall be disposed of by 6 the Deputy Director or Education (Women) herself. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “Regional Deputy Director, Education shall, in relation to a girls” institution means the Joint Director of Education (Women). Chapter-III Regulation-39 (a) The report regarding the suspension of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 16-G shall contain the following particulars and be accompanied by the following document : (a) the name of the persons suspended among with, particulars of the (posts including grades) held by him since the date of his original appointment till the time of suspension including particulars as to the nature of tenure held at the time of suspension, e.g., temporary permanent or a officiating; (b) a certified copy of the report on the basis of which such person was last confirmed or allowed to cross efficiency bar, whichever later. © Details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended; (d) Certified copies of the complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended; (e) Certified copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending such person; (f) Certified copy of the order of suspension issued to such person; (g) In case such person was suspended previously also, details of the charges, on which and the period of which he was suspended on previous occasions accompanied by certified copies of the orders on the basis of which he was re-instated. (2) An employee other than a head of institution or a teacher may be suspended by the appointing authority on any of the grounds specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (5) of Section 16-G. ¼3½ mi&fofue ¼2½ ds vUrxZr fuyEcu dk dksbZ vkns’k izHkko esa ugha jgsxk] tc rd fd ,sls vkns’k ds fnukad ls lkB fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{kd }kjk bldk fyf[kr :i esa vuqeksnu u dj fn;k tk;A Section 5. No member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Head master shall act as an office bearer of the Committee of Management of any recognised institution. Section 6. All appointments shall be made under formal orders or letters of appointment with the sanction of the appointing authority. Section 7. A person selected for substantive appointment against a clear vacancy shall be placed on probation from the date of joining duty. 6. Bare perusal of provision would go to show that sub-section (5) of Section 16-G starts with a caution that no head of institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management.-(a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him, or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. sub-Section (6) of Section 16-G deals with the obligation cast upon the Committee of Management where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, that the said matter has to be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of 1975 Act. Sub -Section (7) of Section 16-G is clear and categorical that no such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. Sub-Section (8) of Section 16-G deals with the situation if, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section. Scheme of provisions noted above, would clearly reflect that Section 16-G has been inserted by U.P. Act No. XXXVI of 1958 to keep check on exercise of authority by the respective Managing Committee of the institution and to prevent the continuance of suspension pending inquiry for long period of time. The effect of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G is that the suspension order shall cease to remain in force on the expiry of 60 days and statutory power has been given to the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the management has not acted in a high handed manner in the matter of suspension, head of the institution or teacher. District Inspector of Schools has further been conferred authority to see that even if suspension has been approved, incumbent is not made to suffer and same being used as tool of harassment, under sub-section (8) of Section 16-G wherein District Inspector of Schools has been conferred with the authority to revoke the said order after providing opportunity of hearing to the Management. Thus statutory supervisory power has been conferred upon the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that power of suspension is not at all misused in the fact of the case and same has been used for bona fide purpose and not with the sole object to deprive an incumbent to perform and discharge his duties and receive salary in full. Scheme of things, point out that objective of said provision is to save the teacher from arbitrary action of the Management of the institution and the District Inspector of Schools has to satisfy himself as to whether order of suspension has been rightly passed or it is illegal or mala fide or it is undeservedly. This Court in the case of Govind Swarup Pandey v. Aurthorized Controller, 1981 UPLBEC 17, has defined the authority of the District Inspector of Schools at the point of time when he proceeds to consider grant of approval of suspension. 7. This Court in the case of Govind Swarup Pandey v. Aurthorized Controller, 1981 UPLBEC 17, has defined the authority of the District Inspector of Schools at the point of time when he proceeds to consider grant of approval of suspension. 7. Time and again, this Court has insisted that, order of approval or disapproval should contain reason. In the case Smt. Nirmal Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) ADJ 96 : 2009(1) ESC 428, in para 5 it has been held as follows : 5. The question as to whether the District Inspector of Schools is required to pass a reasoned order while granting approval or disapproval to the suspension order under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education act, 1921 is no longer res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura, District Ballia v. District Inspector of schools and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226(1), has held as under. “As discussed earlier, a District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G acts in a supervisory capacity, and his decision may have adverse effect on either party which is before him. Since the party affected adversely by his order invariably comes to Court, he must record brief reasons for according or refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension passed by a Committee of Management although a detailed judgment is not required. In the present case, the District Inspector of schools has disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management without giving any reason whatsoever. In absence of any reason, this Court is unable to find fault with the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the order of the District Inspector of schools must be held to be illegal and arbitrary”. It has been held by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tejnarain Singh v. State of U.P and others, 2008(4) ESC 2301 (DB), as under: “We are of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools while exercising the power under Section 16-G(7), has only to examine on prima facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal.” 8. This Court in the case of Ram Kripal Katiyhar v. District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur and others, 2009(7) ADJ 61 (DB), has clearly taken the view that while considering the grant of approval, District Inspector of Schools is required to ensure that there exists some reasonable ground for proceeding against the Head of the Institution or teacher and there exists necessary reason to place him under suspension. However, while considering the grant of approval, he would not embark upon the merits of charges, as Regulation 39 does not required furnishing proof of charges. Under Regulation 39 Committee of Management is required to forward together with the order of suspension, details of charges, certified copies of complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, in order to find out as to whether charges are nonest or does not constitute misconduct. The only requirement is that there must exist some prima facie misconduct on the part of the employee and for which regular departmental proceeding is under contemplation or its already initiated. Relevant para No. 5 is being quoted below: 5. In the instant case it is admitted position that the District Inspector of schools has given approval. The only grouse of the appellant is that opportunity of hearing ought to have been extended while considering the grant of approval. In support of this contention, Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any statutory provision wherein such opportunity was necessary. While considering the grant of approval the District Inspector of Schools is required to ensure that there exists some reasonable ground for proceeding against the Head of Institution or teacher and there exists necessary reason to place him under suspension. However, while considering the grant of approval he would not embark upon the merits of charges. In other words, he cannot hold a parallel inquiry as Regulation 39 does not require furnishing proof of charges. However, while considering the grant of approval he would not embark upon the merits of charges. In other words, he cannot hold a parallel inquiry as Regulation 39 does not require furnishing proof of charges. Under Regulation 39 the Committee of Management is required to forward together with the order of suspension, details of charges, certified copies of complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, in order to find out as to whether charges are nonest or does not constitute misconduct. The act and the Regulation no where envisages about providing opportunity of hearing at the stage of grant of approval by the District Inspector of Schools. However, the person aggrieved by such resolution of the Committee of Management can approach the District Inspector of Schools straightaway to show that the order of suspension is not justified or warranted in the facts of the case. In the case of Govind Swarup Pandey v. Authorised Controller, Adarsh Inter College, Manikpur Banda and another, 1981 UPLBEC 17, this Court has held that it is open to the person aggrieved to approach the District Inspector of Schools straightaway and to satisfy him that the order of suspension has been passed illegally or mala fide even undeservedly. No reason or explanation has come before us as to what prevented the appellant from approaching the District Inspector of schools against the decision of the Committee of Management placing him under suspension. It is well-settled legal position that the order of suspension is not a punishment and, therefore, while placing a delinquent employee under suspension., no notice or show-cause or any opportunity of hearing is mandatory. The only requirement is that there must exist some prima facie misconduct on the part of the employee and for which regular departmental proceeding is under contemplation or is already initiated. 9. On the parameter of the aforesaid provision quoted above, and on the parameters of the judicial pronouncements order impugned is being examined and same clearly reflects that the District Inspector of Schools has not at all given adequate reasons for revoking order of suspension and he has merely proceeded to mention that the charges leveled are not so serious. 9. On the parameter of the aforesaid provision quoted above, and on the parameters of the judicial pronouncements order impugned is being examined and same clearly reflects that the District Inspector of Schools has not at all given adequate reasons for revoking order of suspension and he has merely proceeded to mention that the charges leveled are not so serious. District Inspector of Schools, ought to have been considered the charges and then ought to have given reasons, as to why opinion such charges are not serious whereas reasons are the live link in between contention raised and conclusion arrived. In the absence of adequate reason being there decision making process by means of order dated 15.6.2013 is not being approved of. The District Inspector of Schools, is accordingly directed to pass fresh order, containing reasons, preferably within next two months, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Manager or its nominee and Karunesh Jahuhari, on the parameters as has been noted in the earlier part of the judgment. 10. Under Section 16-G(7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, according to sub-section (7) no “order of suspension, shall remain in force for more than sixty days”, unless approved in writing by Inspector of Schools afresh as per dictum of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Bhusan Mishra v. D.I.O.S., 1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 and followed in the case of Committee of Management v. State of U.P., 2006(7) ADJ 440 , the normal rule is that after expiry of sixty days, the suspension order becomes inoperative, by operation of law, and the inevitable conclusion is that incumbent is entitled to function and receive his salary, until and unless, said suspension order is approved in writing. In the present case accepted position is that suspension order till date has not been approved as such Karunesh Jahauri cannot be prevented from performing and discharging duties accordingly it is hereby directed that till afresh orders are passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Karunesh Jauhari, respondent No. 3 shall continue to perform and discharge duties as Principal and salary shall be ensured to him on the post of Principal alongwith other teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution. With these observations, writ petition is allowed.