JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard. 2. The respondent number 5 was placed under suspension by the petitioner on 1.8.2016 on the ground that having drawn salary from the State Exchequer for the period during which she also claims to have studied B.Ed. as an institutional student, though no such permission was sought. The said suspension was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) vide order dated 27.8.2016 with the condition that if there is any concealment of facts, parties shall be responsible for the same. Subsequently it appears that respondent number 5 who is represented by Sri Rathore, learned counsel, moved some representation before the D.I.O.S. stating that she had studied with the permission of the institution, therefore, the D.I.O.S. has passed the impugned order on 28.9.2016 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) withdrawing approval of suspension vide his earlier order dated 28.7.2016 on the ground that there was difference in the version of the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner herein and that she claims to have studied B.Ed. with the permission of the institution. 3. On being asked to produce the permission, Sri Rathaur was unable to produce the same. 4. Be that as it may, the record reveals that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.2016 asking it to submit his application by 28.9.2016 till 4 p.m. The petitioner herein claims to have submitted the same on 28.9.2016 in the office of the D.I.O.S., but the same has not been considered in the impugned order. 5. As far as the reliance placed by Sri Rathaur upon the Division Bench Judgment reported in (2014) 4 E.S.C. (All.) 2492, Dr. Vibha Pandey v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and others, is concerned, the said judgment relates to the validity of a degree, whereas the question herein is of misconduct by the respondent and not that of the validity of the B.Ed. course, that is why she was placed under suspension, therefore, it does not help the respondents. 6. In view of the failure of the respondent no. 5 to produce the permission before the court, may be for the reason that long period has lapsed since the time respondent no. 5 studied in B.Ed in the year 1978-79, the manner in which the D.I.O.S. has recalled the order of approval, cannot be sustained for the reason, he ought to have probed the matter further. 5 to produce the permission before the court, may be for the reason that long period has lapsed since the time respondent no. 5 studied in B.Ed in the year 1978-79, the manner in which the D.I.O.S. has recalled the order of approval, cannot be sustained for the reason, he ought to have probed the matter further. Such permissions for studying are normally recorded in the service book, if same is maintained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is maintained, but is not available with him today. 8. If no such permission was produced by the respondent no.5, then it is explicable as to on what basis the said fact was accepted by the D.I.O.S. on her mere asking. Furthermore, if the reply to the show cause notice dated 24.9.2016 was submitted by the petitioner on 28.9.2016 before 4 p.m., then the same ought to have been considered, therefore considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case the order impugned (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to the D.I.O.S. for re-considering the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and perusing the relevant records of the relevant period so as to ascertain as to whether the permission was granted or not and also as to how, assuming the permission was granted, the respondent no.5 could have studied in the B.Ed. Course as an institutional candidate, which requires daily attendance as a regular candidate and at the same time taught in the institution in question. The petitioner and the respondent no.5 shall fully cooperate in the proceedings before him by producing the relevant documents in their possession. 10. The aforesaid decision shall be taken by the D.I.O.S. within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 11. As far as the contention of Sri Rathaur that after passing of the impugned order another suspension order, has been passed on 3.10.2016 is concerned, Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is in respect of illegalities committed with regard to M.A. course. Be that as it may, this has no bearing on the matter in question. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.