JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents, Sri Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel representing the Registrar/Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow and Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Committee of Management of the Madarsa Hanfiya Ziyaul Quaran, Shahi Masjid, Bada Chandganj, Lucknow and petitioner No. 2 is said to be holding the office of Manager/Secretary of the aforesaid institution. 3. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the Registrar/Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow whereby he has given his opinion that the order of the dismissal from service passed by the Committee of Management in relation to respondent No. 5 is not lawful and the proceedings conducted against him is not as per the rules. By the impugned order he has further opined that the petitioner-Committee of Management should revisit the dismissal order dated 11.6.2016 after reinstating the respondent No. 5. 4. Respondent No. 5 is said to be employed as Assistant Teacher in the institution and on certain allegations, a departmental proceeding is said to have been initiated against him. During the departmental proceedings, he was placed under suspension. The departmental proceedings ultimately culminated in the order of dismissal dated 11.6.2016. 5. As per requirement of the Rule 34 of the U.P. Ashaskiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarso Ki Manyata Niyamawali, which is non-statutory in nature, the requisite papers were sent to the Registrar/Inspector. Rule 34 of the aforesaid Rules is extracted herein below: ^^34- ;fn izcU/kkf/kdj.k }kjk fdlh v/;kid@ deZpkjh dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS rks fu"dklu ls iwoZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh vko';d gksxhA iwjh dk;Zokgh ds fooj.k fujh{kd] vjch enjlk] m0iz0] bykgkckn dks izsf"kr djus gksaxsA ;fn dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ik;h x;h rks fujh{kd dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og vius lq>ko izcU/k lfefr dks HkstsA** 6. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 34 clearly indicates that in case any decision by the Committee of Management of the Institution, governed by the said rule, for terminating the services of teaching/non-teaching staff is taken, it would be necessary to conduct legal proceedings before such termination. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 34 clearly indicates that in case any decision by the Committee of Management of the Institution, governed by the said rule, for terminating the services of teaching/non-teaching staff is taken, it would be necessary to conduct legal proceedings before such termination. Rule 34 further provides that details of such legal proceedings which have to necessarily precede the decision of termination of the services needs to be sent to the Registrar/Inspector, Madarsa Shiksha Parishad and in case the said authority finds irregularities in the legal proceedings drawn/conducted by the Management, he shall send his suggestions to the Committee of Management. 7. From a plain reading of Rule 34, it is apparent that any decision for terminating the services of teacher/non-teaching staff has to necessarily precede the legal proceedings contemplated in the rules and further that once the said proceedings are concluded, the same are to be sent for examination by the Registrar/Inspector of the Madarsa Shiksha Parishad which has the authority/jurisdiction to send his recommendation to the Committee of Management, in case he is not in agreement with the proceedings drawn and conducted by the Committee of Management of the Institution. The simple reading of the said rule would, thus, mean that any order terminating the services of teacher/non-teaching staff of Madarsa will come into force and will take effect only once the examination of the legal proceedings drawn against such an employee is done by the Registrar/Inspector of the Madarsa Shiksha Parishad. 8. In the instant case, the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner by the Committee of Management is said to have been taken on 11.6.2016 and the requisite papers for examination of the legal proceedings allegedly drawn by the Management against the petitioner were sent to the Registrar/Inspector of Madarsa Shiksha Parishad for his examination. On examination of such proceedings, the only course available to the Registrar/Inspector was to make certain suggestion in respect of the legal proceedings said to have drawn against the petitioner, however, the power vested in the Registrar/Inspector, Madarsa Shiksha Parishad under Rule 34 would not encompass in its fold the power of giving any direction for reinstatement etc. as the same would amount to revocation of suspension. as the same would amount to revocation of suspension. Till the matter is examined by the Registrar/Inspector and he expresses his agreement in relation to the legal proceedings drawn by the Committee of Management, the order of dismissal dated 11.6.2006 would not have any effect and in fact it has not taken effect till date for the reason that the Registrar/Inspector has not expressed his concurrence with the proposal of terminating the services of respondent No. 5 by the Committee of Management, rather disagreeing with the proceedings conducted by the Management, he has given some suggestions. However, any order for reinstatement of respondent No. 5 by the Registrar/Inspector of Madarsa Shiksha Parishad would amount to revocation of the suspension, which authority under the aforesaid rule is not vested in the Registrar/Inspector. 9. Further, it is also noticeable that while passing the impugned order dated 18.11.2016, the Registrar/Inspector has relied upon some report sent by District Minority Welfare Officer dated 6.9.2016 which clearly appears to have been sent only after the requisite papers were sent by the Committee of Management to the Registrar/Inspector for his examination in terms of the Rule 34. Though said report has been relied upon, however, the petitioner-Committee of Management of the institution concerned was never confronted with the said report and as such the impugned decision cannot be said to have been taken in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 10. The issue as to whether any approval etc. of the decision of the Committee of Management for terminating the services of the petitioners needs to be given or not before the order of dismissal takes effect, by the Registrar/Inspector is not relevant in this case at this stage. The provision contained in Rule 34 of the Rules as aforequoted contemplates that Registrar/Inspector, Madarsa Shiksha Parishad will examine the legality of the departmental proceedings drawn by the Committee of Management against the teacher/non-teaching staff and in case he does not agree with such legal proceedings drawn, he will make certain suggestion to the Committee of Management. Any proposed decision by the Committee of Management in respect of termination of services of teacher/non-teacher staff would, thus, be dependent on the concurrence or agreement of the Registrar/Inspector with the proceedings drawn and conducted by the management. However, such concurrence/agreement would not mean any approval to be recorded by the Registrar/Inspector. Any proposed decision by the Committee of Management in respect of termination of services of teacher/non-teacher staff would, thus, be dependent on the concurrence or agreement of the Registrar/Inspector with the proceedings drawn and conducted by the management. However, such concurrence/agreement would not mean any approval to be recorded by the Registrar/Inspector. The requirement of observing concurrence by the Registrar/Inspector emanates from Rule 34 itself for the reason that the said rule empowers the Registrar/Inspector, Madarsa Shiksha Parishad to give his suggestion in case he finds irregularities in the proceedings drawn and conducted by the Committee of Management against the teacher/non-teaching staff concerned. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of C/M Madarsa Jamia Arabia Malikul Uloom v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 331 of 2014) has observed that Rule 34 does not provide for any approval before the disciplinary action is initiated or any punishment is inflicted against any employee of the Madarsa. It further provides that the powers under Rule 34 are by way of supervision to avoid any arbitrary or illegal action as it has been held that the powers of disciplinary action in a minority institution are to regulate administration. Relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted herein below. “Rule 34 does not provide for any approval before the disciplinary action is initiated or any punishment is inflicted against any employee of the Madarsa. The powers under Rule 34 are by way of supervision to avoid any arbitrary or illegal action as it has been held that the powers of disciplinary action in a minority institution are to regulate administration and not for mismanagement or operation of its employees getting salary from public exchequer. The Inspector, however, does not possess any powers to either approve or reject the proposal”. 12. So far as the observation of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case of C/M Madarsa Jamia Arabia Malikul Uloom (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute, however, at this juncture distinction between power of recording concurrence and the power of according approval to the disciplinary action on the basis of what has been prescribed in Rule 34 needs to be clarified. The power of approval if vested in the Registrar/Inspector would include power of disapproval as well, i.e. to say, in a given case if the Committee of Management of the Madarsa proposes punishment of termination of services, may be in the form of dismissal or removal, and such proposed punishment is disapproved by the Registrar/Inspector, the Committee of Management will have no option and after disapproval of the proposed punishment the disciplinary proceedings would come to an end. Such power of approval as observed by the Division Bench in the case of C/M Madarsa Jamia Arabia Malikul Uloom (supra) is not available to the Registrar/Inspector of Madarsa Shiksha Parishad under Rule 34 of the aforesaid Rules. 13. Having observed as above, it is noticeable that the Registrar/Inspector has been vested with the authority to accord his concurrence/agreement with the proceedings drawn by the management against the employee as contemplated under Rule 34, it would mean that the order of termination from service of an employee of Madarsa shall take effect only once the legal proceedings to be conducted before the decision of termination of service are examined by the Registrar/Inspector and agreeing with the same he does not decide to give any suggestions. If the Registrar/Inspector does not find any illegality the decision of termination of services of an employee of Madarsa will come into effect, however, if he finds that proceedings drawn against such an employee were irregular and there were certain illegalities, he may send the matter back to the Committee of Management for reconsideration of the entire issue alongwith his suggestion. Thus, in case the Registrar/Inspector after examining the matter in respect of the proposed punishment of termination of service of an employee of Madarsa does not find that there exists any irregularities in the legal proceedings drawn against the employee concerned and that no suggestion needs to be given to the management of the institution, the same would amount to according or giving concurrence or agreement with the action taken by the Committee of Management. 14. The aforesaid distinction between recording concurrence and according approval to the punishment order terminating the services of an employee of the Madarsa always needs to be borne in mind by all concerned. 14. The aforesaid distinction between recording concurrence and according approval to the punishment order terminating the services of an employee of the Madarsa always needs to be borne in mind by all concerned. In a situation where the Registrar/Inspector of Madarsa Shiksha Parishad finds certain irregularities in the proceedings drawn against the employee or the teacher, he has the power to remit the matter back to the Committee of Management with his suggestions. However, he does not have power to disapprove such action for the reason that on disapproval the Committee of Management will have no authority to proceed against the employee afresh. Disapproval would result in termination of the proceedings without punishment but in case the Registrar/Inspector does not express his concurrence or agreement with the proceedings drawn, the departmental proceedings would not cease immediately; rather they will be reopened on the suggestions which may be given by the Registrar/Inspector to the Committee of Management. 15. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the Registrar/Inspector has not recorded his concurrence or agreement with the proceedings drawn against the petitioner and has remitted the matter to the Committee of Management for reconsideration. Thus, he has not recorded his concurrence or agreement with the proceedings drawn by the Committee of Management against respondent No. 5. In such a situation, the only course open to the Registrar/Inspector was to give his suggestions with the direction to the Committee of Management to reconsider the issue afresh. The Registrar/Inspector having remitted the matter to the Committee of Management by means of impugned order has also ordered for reinstatement of the respondent No. 5, which would amount to revocation of his suspension and in my considered opinion, such authority is not vested with the Registrar/Inspector of Madarsa Shiksha Parishad. It is also observed that before passing the impugned order though the Registrar/Inspector has relied upon the report submitted by the District Minority Welfare Officer dated 6.9.2016, however, the said report was never provided to the Committee of Management which makes the order violative of the principles of natural justice. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitioner deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. 17. The impugned order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the Registrar/Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitioner deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. 17. The impugned order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the Registrar/Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The Registrar/Inspector, U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow is required to reconsider the entire matter and while examining the proceedings conducted by the Committee of Management against respondent No. 5, he shall provide opportunity of hearing and presentation of their cases to the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 5. He shall also furnish to the petitioner-Committee of Management as well as respondent No. 5 copy of the report dated 6.9.2016 submitted by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Lucknow. The aforesaid exercise under this order shall be completed by the Registrar/Inspector, U.P.Madarsa Shiksha Parishad within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further provided that the respondent No. 5 will be deemed to be under suspension. However, continuance of his suspension shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the Registrar/Inspector under this order. 18. Respondent No. 5 shall also be entitled to and paid subsistence allowance as per rules. 19. There will be no order as to costs.