JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Assisted by Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.7. None appears on behalf of respondent no.6. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, 26.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 1,2 and 3 (Annexure No.7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner on the post of Principal of the Janta Inter College Sohsa, Mathiya, Kushinagar under the impugned orders dated 24.12.2019, 26.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 (Annexure No.7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively) and to give all service benefits including salary for the post of Principal." 3. On 26.2.2020, this Court passed the following order: "Second Supplementary Affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Learned standing counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 pray for and are granted a week's time to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the State respondents shall also disclose the authority of law under which the impugned order has been passed. They shall also file a copy of the inquiry report, if any. Put up in the Additional Cause List on 5.3.2020." 4. Despite afore-quoted order dated 26.2.2020, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. 5. Standing Counsel on instructions states that in the matter of the F.I.R. No.0722 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019, under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kasya, lodged by the committee of management against the petitioner, the police has submitted final report dated 6.2.2020 before the concerned court, which has not yet been accepted. 6. By the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, the Joint director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur, has directed the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, to take action against the petitioner working as Officiating Principal on the basis of a complaint received against him. 6. By the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, the Joint director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur, has directed the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, to take action against the petitioner working as Officiating Principal on the basis of a complaint received against him. The impugned order dated 26.12.2019 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar in consequence to the order of the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur, whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, has directed the committee of management to take action against the petitioner. On the same day, the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 was passed by the manager of the respondent no.3 institution, whereby he initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and reverted him. 7. Despite being asked and also despite the afore-quoted order dated 26.12.2020, none of the respondents have shown authority of law to pass the impugned orders. By the impugned order dated 26.12.2019, the petitioner has not been suspended instead he has been reverted. The committee of management has power to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and to suspend the petitioner under Section 16G (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Sub section (3)(a) of Section 16G of the Act, provides that no Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the management, the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Section 16G(7) provides for approval/disapproval of suspension. 8. Undisputedly, the provisions of Section 16G (5) and 16G (7) of the Act, have not been followed by the Manager of the institution, while passing the impugned order dated 26.12.2019. 9. Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 provides that the management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board, dismissed any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period whether temporarily or permanently and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be void. 10. 10. The impugned order passed by the Manager of the institution certainly amounts to reduction in emolument. This could not have been done by the manager of the respondent no.3 institution without approval under Section 21 of Act 1982. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is wholly without authority of law. 11. Section 21 of the Act, 1982 has also been similarly interpreted by this Court in Hem Lata Agrawal v. District Inspector of Schools, 2003(2) AWC 939 . Relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Hem Lata Agrawal (supra) is reproduced below: "9. The question whether the reversion of a teacher, who was appointed on temporary adhoc basis as Principal under Section 18 of the Act would amount to reduction in rank so as to require approval of the Board need not be considered here as whether or not it is a reduction in rank, it is clear that it amounts to reduction of emoluments. The petitioner is entitled to the salary for the post of Principal and reverting her, as a Lecturer would undoubtedly affect the emoluments to which she is entitled. The language of Section 21 of the Act is wide enough to cover within its scope the order impugned in this writ petition.".... 10. Even though the promotion as Principal on purely ad hoc basis may not be treated as a promotion in rank, the substantive post of the teacher being still that of lecturer but it is clear that Section 18 creates a right in favour of the senior most teacher to be given a promotion on adhoc basis as Principal and a person appointed on the basis of such seniority cannot be divested of the right to work as ad hoc Principal unless the statute so provides and no such provision has been brought to my notice. In such cases, if the ad hoc Principal commits any misconduct such as is alleged in the present case in the counter-affidavit, the power of suspension can be invoked." 12. For all the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur (respondent no.1), impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar (respondent no.2) and the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Authorised Controller, Janta Inter College, Soha, Mathiya, Kushinagar are hereby quashed. For all the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur (respondent no.1), impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar (respondent no.2) and the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Authorised Controller, Janta Inter College, Soha, Mathiya, Kushinagar are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondent no.3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if lawfully required. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.