JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Mishra for respondent No. 3. 2. The third respondent Yogesh Kumar, who was working as Accounts clerk in Balwant Rural Engineering Institute, Bichpuri, Agra, which is a Technical Institute governed by the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962, was placed under suspension by the Principal, (Petitioner No. 2) by order dated 7 April 2006 on the basis of resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 29 March 2006. He was thereafter served with a charge-sheet containing charges of insubordination, inefficiency, dereliction of duty and embezzlement of the Government grant. In the disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty of the charges. Consequently, the petitioners resolved to inflict the punishment of removal upon him. The proposal was sent to the Director, Pravidhik Shiksha, seeking approval to the punishment proposed. The Director, Technical Education, U.P. granted approval to the punishment of removal from service on 23 April 2007 followed by order dated 14 May 2007 by the petitioner removing respondent No. 3 from service. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (respondent No. 2). It seems that the appeal filed by the third respondent was taken up for consideration by a Sub-Committee of the Board. The Sub-Committee passed an order on 7 June 2008 holding that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the charges of misconduct and consequently revoked the removal of respondent No. 3 and substituted the punishment with that of withholding of three increment with future effect. It was further directed that during the period of suspension, the third respondent shall not be entitled to any other amount except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. Aggrieved thereby, the Committee of Management as well as the Principal have filed the instant writ petition. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners applied for amendment of the writ petition thereby challenging the resolution of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24.12.2009 whereby the Board granted approval to the decision of the Sub-Committee reducing the punishment. The amendment application was allowed by this Court and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally. 4. The amendment application was allowed by this Court and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Institution Receiving Grant-In-Aid From the Government Regulations, 1996 (Regulations), framed under Section 23 of the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962, appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 33 lies to the Board and it alone was competent to decide the appeal. It is submitted that the Sub-Committee of the Board before whom the appeal was placed and which resolved to reduce the punishment was not competent to deal with the appeal. It is thus sought to be suggested that the decision taken by the Sub-Committee was without jurisdiction and so also the decision of the Board taken in pursuance thereof. It is further submitted that the decision of the Board as well as the Sub-Committee does not disclose any reason for reducing the punishment. The direction for substituting the punishment is by way of a non-speaking order. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 supported the decision of the Board reducing the punishment. It is urged that the Board was competent to constitute the Sub-Committee to help it in discharge of its function. It is submitted that since the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee was duly placed before the Board and thus it cannot be said that the decision to reduce the punishment was taken by the Sub-Committee. He further submitted that under Regulation 31 (4), it is specifically provided that the Committee of Management shall not propose to the Director the termination of service of a confirmed employee unless the resolution to that effect has been passed by a two third majority of members present and voting, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. He submitted that in the instant case, no meeting was convened for consideration of the proposal to remove the third respondent from service, nor there is on record any resolution passed in this regard. He therefore, submitted that neither the Director could have accorded approval to the proposal for removal of third respondent from service nor the petitioners could have dispensed with his services. He therefore, submitted that neither the Director could have accorded approval to the proposal for removal of third respondent from service nor the petitioners could have dispensed with his services. It is urged that specific plea in this regard was taken by the third respondent in the appeal filed before the Board but the Board did not consider such plea and mechanically approved the recommendation of the Sub-Committee. He further submitted that since the quantum of punishment has been substantially reduced and therefore, the third respondent remained content with the impugned order and did not challenge it further before this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Indisputably, the appeal filed by the third respondent was placed before the Sub-Committee for consideration. The Sub-Committee while endorsing the findings of misconduct was of the opinion that the punishment of removal was dis-proportionate to the seriousness of the charges and therefore, directed for withholding of three increments with future effect in place of the punishment of removal. The Board in its meeting held on 24.12.2009 considered the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee and approved the same. 8. Under Regulation 33(5), an appeal against an order imposing punishment of removal lies to the Board. Clause (b) of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 33 provides as under : “(b) The Board shall consider- (i) Whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established; (ii) Whether the facts established afford sufficient grounds for taking action; and (iii) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after such consideration, the Board may pass such orders as appear to it just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.” 9. Sub-regulation (6) provides that in deciding upon the punishment to be imposed, mitigating factors, if any, and past record of the employee concerned may be taken into account. 10. Thus, although the Board is conferred with the power to reduce punishment but the same has to be based on objective consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. If there is any mitigating factor, it has to be taken note of. The other relevant consideration is the past record of the employee. 10. Thus, although the Board is conferred with the power to reduce punishment but the same has to be based on objective consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. If there is any mitigating factor, it has to be taken note of. The other relevant consideration is the past record of the employee. Thus, even if, it is assumed that the final decision in the appeal is by the Board and it merely considered the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee constituted by it, it was incumbent upon the Board to have applied it’s independent mind to the aforesaid factors laid down under sub-regulation (6). However, a perusal of the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee as well as the decision of the Board reveals that no such factor has been taken into consideration. Both the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee as well as the decision of the Board, does not contain any reason. In the absence of reasons, this Court is unable to ascertain the factor which weighed with the Sub-Committee and the Board is substituting the punishment accorded by the punishing authority. Consequently, the decision of the Board, in so far as it accepts the recommendation of the Sub-Committee for reduction of the punishment awarded to the third respondent, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 11. Since, this Court has found that the decision of the Board reducing the punishment itself is not valid, as it does not contain any reason, therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to enter into the issue as to whether or not, the appeal could have been laid before the Sub-Committee or whether the Sub-Committee could have made recommendations to the Board for reducing the punishment. It is evident from the submissions made by learned counsel for the third respondent that even the third respondent is not satisfied with the decision of the Sub-Committee and the Board, as according to him, many of the pleas raised in the appeal were not dealt with at all. In such view of the matter, this Court leaves all these issues to be raised by respective parties before the Board, to which the matter shall stand remitted for being decided afresh. 12. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Board for reconsideration of the appeal in the light of the observations made above. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court leaves all these issues to be raised by respective parties before the Board, to which the matter shall stand remitted for being decided afresh. 12. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Board for reconsideration of the appeal in the light of the observations made above. 13. The writ petition stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above.