ORDER : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This petition is filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution concerned, questioning the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, dated 10th December, 2018; whereby a direction has been issued to it, to allow respondent no. 5, to function as the Officiating Principal of the Institution concerned. 2. Before referring to the merits of the controversy raised, it will be appropriate to note that the petitioner – Committee of Management had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 19738 of 2018, which came to be disposed of on 17th September, 2018 by passing the following orders:- “1. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Vikrant Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court by the Committee of Management of the Gandhi Inter College, Patel Nagar, Jhunsi, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'College') impugning the two orders dated 14.7.2018 and 7.08.2018 in respect of the respondent No.5 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. By the first order dated 14.07.2018, the District Inspector of Schools has disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.5.2018 for placing the respondent No.5 under suspension. Vide second order dated 7.08.2018, the District Inspector of Schools has directed that respondent No.5 be appointed as Officiating/adhoc Principal of the College till a validly selected candidate by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board joins as Principal of the College. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management which is mandatory under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education, Act, 1921 and Rules framed thereunder. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management which is mandatory under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education, Act, 1921 and Rules framed thereunder. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent No.5. So far as the first order dated 14.07.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is concerned, sixty days have already passed since it was resolved on 14.5.2018 to place the respondent No.5 under suspension and, therefore, no purpose would be served by adjudicating the order dated 14.07.2018 as after 60 days suspension comes to an end automatically if it is not approved by the District Inspector of Schools. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has been issued to the respondent No.5 and the disciplinary proceedings are being undertaken against him. Be that as it may, there is no order restraining the Committee of Management to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.5. 6. So far as the second order dated 7.08.2018 is concerned, since the order has been passed without hearing the Committee of Management, the same is being set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and then take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The Committee of Management may represent the District Inspector of Schools within a period of one week and the necessary orders should be passed by the District Inspector of Schools within a period of ten days thereafter after giving opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management as well as respondent No.5. 7. It is also provided that the respondent No.5 shall be allowed to perform his duties as Lecturer of the College and he shall be paid salary accordingly. 8. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.” 3. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the resolution passed by the Committee of Management for placing respondent no. 5 under suspension, dated 14.5.2018, was not approved by the Inspector, in terms of Section 16(G)(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and this position was accepted by this Court also. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the resolution passed by the Committee of Management for placing respondent no. 5 under suspension, dated 14.5.2018, was not approved by the Inspector, in terms of Section 16(G)(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and this position was accepted by this Court also. There was further no direction for examining the legality of the resolution dated 14th July, 2018 and the second order dated 7.8.2018, however, was set aside as it had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management. It is in furtherance of this direction that the Inspector has proceeded to pass a fresh order. The continuance of respondent no. 5 as Lecturer was also not interfered with. 4. The Inspector has now proceeded to pass the order impugned holding that respondent no. 5 is the senior most Lecturer in the Institution and there has been no complaint raised with regard to his functioning since 17.12.2003 to 31.3.2017 and that he has continued to function as Officiating Principal also. A further finding has been returned that the order of suspension does not refer to any resolution of the Committee of Management for placing the respondent no. 5 under suspension and, therefore, the order is otherwise not a valid order and the charges levelled are wholly vague and are not serious enough so as to impose any major punishment against the petitioner. It is also recorded that all relevant materials in support of charges have not been furnished to the office of the Inspector and, therefore, the resolution of Committee of Management is bad in law. 5. The order is challenged by the petitioner-Committee of Management on the ground that a valid resolution had been passed by the Committee of Management for placing respondent no. 5 under suspension and, therefore, the finding about non-existence of a resolution is perverse. It is also stated that serious charges have been levelled against the respondent no. 5, that he was in a habit of coming to the Institution in drunken state and that various children have also complained against him. It is stated that all such facts have not been examined in correct perspective. Learned counsel further submits that one R.K. Singh, has been appointed as Officiating Principal on 22.9.2008 and his signatures were also attested, which fact has also been omitted. 6. It is stated that all such facts have not been examined in correct perspective. Learned counsel further submits that one R.K. Singh, has been appointed as Officiating Principal on 22.9.2008 and his signatures were also attested, which fact has also been omitted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 points out that though respondent no. 5 was continuing as Lecturer since 2003 onwards, yet no complaint was ever raised with regard to his working for the last 15 years. It is stated that only after respondent no. 5 refused to oblige the Committee of Management that the Manager got annoyed and documents have been prepared for his false implication. It is also stated that none of the records have been submitted before the authority concerned as is required under Section 16(G)7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and that the charges are otherwise not serious enough so as to warrant any interference with the order. 7. I have heard Sri Udai Chandani for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Tiwari for the respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel appeared for the State. 8. A perusal of the record would go to show that the respondent no. 5 was continuing as Lecturer in the Institution since 2003 without any complaint. It is admitted that he is otherwise the senior most Lecturer. The resolution of Committee of Management for placing him under suspension has been placed before the Court, a perusal whereof, would go to show that absolutely no charges are specified therein with regard to working of respondent no. 5. The resolution merely states that the Committee of Management has been informed by the Manager that despite repeated oral and written direction, respondent no. 5 has failed to improve his working which adversely affected the teaching atmosphere. Except to state such facts, there is no specific charge levelled in the resolution. The charge-sheet has also been placed before the Court, which is Annexure 17. The charges are general in nature and no act of any financial embezzlement etc. have been levelled against him. Most of the complaints, which have been relied upon are of a date subsequent to the resolution of the Committee of Management for placing respondent no. 5 under suspension. The charges are general in nature and no act of any financial embezzlement etc. have been levelled against him. Most of the complaints, which have been relied upon are of a date subsequent to the resolution of the Committee of Management for placing respondent no. 5 under suspension. In light of such facts, this Court finds no error in the order of the Inspector, as per which the resolution of the Committee of Management, apparently lacks bonafide. At this stage of proceedings, it would not be appropriate to express any final opinion in that regard as disciplinary proceedings are still pending. 9. In view of the fact that no order of approval has otherwise been passed by the Inspector and the fact that an appropriate disciplinary action is yet to be taken against respondent no. 5, he would be entitled to continue as Officiating Principal of the Institution, particularly, in view of Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act. Admittedly, no approval has yet been granted for any punishment to be imposed upon respondent no. 5. The mere fact that someone else was allowed to officiate on account of the fact that the order dated 7.8.2018 had been quashed by this Court would also not be a relevant factor, once the issues have been examined on merits by the Inspector concerned. In such circumstances, the order dated 10th December, 2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools does not require any interference. 10. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that respondent no. 5 shall cooperate in the disciplinary action initiated against him, which shall be taken to its logical end, in accordance with law, notwithstanding any observation made in the present petition.