JUDGMENT By the Court.—Since the subject-matter of these writ petitions are intertwined, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we proceed to decide both the writ petitions by the judgment which follows: 2. Under challenge in the Writ Petition No. 8530 (SB) of 2018 is an order/letter dated 13.12.2017 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. In Writ Petition No. 18472 (SB) of 2018, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding said to have been instituted and initiated against him, has been challenged. 3. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management of the Institution concerned and Sri Sachindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishva Vidhyalaya, Varanasi. 4. The petitioner holds the post of Principal of Adarsh Shri Sad Vidhyalaya, Bajiganj Mallawan,, District Hardoi. 5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the order of suspension, is that by the impugned letter/order dated 13.12.2017, though the decision of the Committee of Management to place the petitioner under suspension taken in its meeting dated 10.12.2017 has been communicated and through the said letter itself, certain charges have also been intimated to the petitioner requiring him to file his explanation/reply, however, the Committee of Management did not take any such decision to place the petitioner under suspension. He has also stated that the charge-sheet dated 24.3.2018 issued to the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition No. 18472 (SB) of 2018, was never approved by the appointing Authority of the petitioner that is the Committee of Management and as such, in absence of any such approval, no departmental proceeding can be permitted to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of such a charge-sheet. 6. The Court, vide order dated 18.7.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 18472 (SB) of 2018, directed the learned counsel representing the Committee of Management to produce the record relating to the suspension, issuance and approval of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management relating to these decisions and the Agenda circulated for the said purpose. In compliance of the said order dated 18.7.2018, the learned counsel representing the Committee of Management has produced two registers, namely, agenda register and register containing the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management. From perusal of the Committee of Management, it is clear that the charge-sheet dated 24.3.2018 has never been approved by the Committee of Management in any of its meetings. The same appears to have been issued by the convener of the enquiry committee. 7. It is needless to observe that it is well-settled principle of law that any departmental proceeding against an employee can proceed only if the charge-sheet is issued either by the appointing Authority himself or with his approval. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charge-sheet dated 24.3.2018 has not been approved by the Committee of Management in any of its meetings, as is apparent from perusal of the produced before us today by the learned counsel representing the Committee of Management. Thus, the impugned charge-sheet is vitiated and on the basis of the same, departmental proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued. 8. So far as the suspension order dated 13.12.2017 is concerned, a mention in the said order/letter has been made to a decision said to have been taken on 10.12.2017 by the Committee of Management. We have perused the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Management held on 10.12.2017. The said minutes do not anywhere record the decision of the Committee of Management to place the petitioner under suspension. It only records that the President has directed the Manager to place the petitioner under suspension and constitute an enquiry committee for conducting the enquiry. Relevant portion of the said decision taken by the Committee of Management in its minutes of meeting dated 10.12.2017 reads as **vr% v/;{kth us leL;k dh xEHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq;s izca/ku dks vkns'k fn;k fd izkpk;Z Jh vthr dqekj 'kqDy dks fufyEcr dj] tkap lfefr cuk;h tk;A** 9. Thus, the aforesaid decision cannot be said to be decision of the Members of the Committee of Management present in the said meeting held on 10.12.2017. The minutes of meeting of the said date only reflects the direction given by the President to the Manager to place the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the aforesaid decision cannot be said to be decision of the Members of the Committee of Management present in the said meeting held on 10.12.2017. The minutes of meeting of the said date only reflects the direction given by the President to the Manager to place the petitioner under suspension. In absence of any such resolution of the Committee of Management to place the petitioner under suspension, which is his appointing Authority, the impugned suspension of the petitioner also cannot be permitted to be continued. 10. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and for the reasons given above, both the writ petitions are hereby allowed. The impugned decision/order dated 13.12.2017 suspending the petitioner is hereby quashed. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner dated 24.3.2018 is also hereby quashed. As a consequence of this judgment, the petitioner shall be allowed to join his duties as Principal of the Institution and he shall also be paid full salary of the intervening period and future salary as and when the same accrues to him. 11. However, we further provide that notwithstanding this judgment being rendered by the Court today, it will be open to the appointing Authority to proceed in according with law. 12. There will be no order as to costs.