JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties no.1 to 3, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4-Om Pal Singh Raghuvanshi and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-Committee of Management, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi Inter College has challenged the validity of a resolution dated 18.02.2022, passed by the Regional Level Committee whereby it had recommended the selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4, an order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad directing the Manager/Principal, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi Inter College to sign the requisite documents for payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 in furtherance of the aforesaid resolution dated 18.02.2022 and an order dated 24.04.2024, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad declining to approve the suspension and termination of opposite party no.4 from the post of Principal, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi Inter College. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an F.I.R. No.45 of 2022, under Sections 420, 376-B, 323, 506, 323, 120-B I.P.C. was lodged against the opposite party no.4 in Police Station Kampil, District Fatehgarh by a teacher of the college stating that under an allurement of getting her some benefit the opposite party no.4 had raped and cheated her and that when she got pregnant the opposite party no.4 got her pregnancy aborted and he threatened her. 4. After lodging of the F.I.R. the opposite party no.4 was placed under suspension by means of an order dated 06.04.2022 on the ground of registration of the aforesaid first information report stating that the act alleged in the F.I.R. has tarnished the reputation of the college. It was also alleged in the suspension order that the opposite party no.4 was guilty of embezzlement of students' funds and amount of mid-day-meal. The suspension of the opposite party no.4 was approved by means of an order dated 20.04.2020, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad. It was also alleged in the suspension order that the opposite party no.4 was guilty of embezzlement of students' funds and amount of mid-day-meal. The suspension of the opposite party no.4 was approved by means of an order dated 20.04.2020, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad. On 08.07.2022 the Manager of the College has sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools stating that the opposite party no.4 was placed under suspension on 22.03.2022 and thereafter an enquiry committee has submitted a report dated 03.06.2022 holding the opposite party no.4 guilty of the charges and the Committee of Management has terminated the services of the opposite party no.4 on the post of Principal of the College. 5. On 25.07.2022 the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the Manager of the College stating that in view of the order dated 12.07.2022, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, whereby the court has accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, approval to suspension of the opposite party no.4 was cancelled. 6. The petitioner filed Writ-A No.12814 of 2022 challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the DIOS, Farrukhabad which was disposed of by means of an order dated 31.08.2022, passed by a coordinate Bench of this court providing that a three member committee appointed by the petitioner may issue a fresh notice to the opposite party no.5 containing list of witnesses and other evidence and the enquiry should be conducted and concluded within a period of three months. 7. Thereafter, the Manager of the College wrote a letter dated 30.11.2022 to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad stating that the opposite party no.4 had appeared before the Enquiry Committee but he did not cooperate with the Committee and did not submit his version but subsequently he submitted his written explanation and evidence on 16.10.2022. The Committee gave further opportunity to the opposite party no.4 to submit evidence in support of his claim. The other concerned persons had also been called to adduce their evidence, after which the Enquiry Committee found that the opposite party no.4 is guilty of having committed an offence of rape regarding which the victim had lodged an F.I.R. but the opposite party no.4 has managed to get a final report filed in connivance with the informant and with the police authorities. The Committee of Management of the institution has decided to terminate the services of the opposite party no.4 from the post of Principal. 8. The opposite party no.4 challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ-A No.1703 of 2023, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 21.03.2023, whereby the aforesaid order was quashed and the opposite party no.4 was directed to be reinstated and the management was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with the law afresh, from the stage of enquiry report. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench by filing Special Appeal No.242 of 2023 in which an interim order was passed staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2023, passed by the writ court. The said appeal is still pending. 9. Meanwhile, the opposite party no.4 filed Writ-A No.4424 of 2024, in which an order dated 18.04.2024 was passed directing the District Inspector of Schools to file his own affidavit indicating why he has not taken a decision in the matter of approval of the petitioner's termination. The District Inspector of Schools issued notices dated 22.04.2024 to the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 and thereafter he has passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 refusing to accord approval to the termination of service of the opposite party no.4 on the ground that the only charge against the opposite party no.4 was lodging of an F.I.R., the allegation levelled in which could not be established during investigation and the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report which has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. Although, the suspension order contained two other charges of embezzlement of students' funds and money of mid-day-meal, the charge-sheet issued to the opposite party no.4 did not contain any such charge and the only allegation against the petitioner on which the enquiry was held, was based regarding lodging of the F.I.R. against him, the allegations levelled in which could not be substantiated. 11. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner did not comply with the direction issued by this court in the order dated 31.08.2022 for proving the list of witnesses and other evidences to the opposite party no.4. 11. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner did not comply with the direction issued by this court in the order dated 31.08.2022 for proving the list of witnesses and other evidences to the opposite party no.4. Even as per the provisions contained in Regulation 37 of Chapter 3 of the Regulations framed under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, it is mandatory for the Management to provide copies of the enquiry report and all the other related documents to the delinquent employee, which has not been done in the present case. 12. In the order dated 30.11.2022, merely this much has been stated that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to prove his innocence, but this order does not make a reference to any evidence led to prove the charges. It is settled law that where the employer levels charges of commission of any misconduct against any employee, it is the employer who has to adduce evidence in support of the charges to prove that the employee is guilty of the charges. Without the charges having been established by producing any evidence, the employee cannot be called upon to adduce evidence to prove himself innocent and in any case he cannot be held guilty merely because he could not adduce evidence to prove his innocence. 13. The order dated 13.11.2022 holds the petitioner guilty of commission of offence of rape regarding which although an F.I.R. had been lodged, but the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. could not be established during investigation and the Investigating Officer submitted a final report, which has been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. The order dated 13.11.2022, besides holding the opposite party no.4 guilty, goes on to held the informant of the F.I.R. as also the concerned police personnel guilty of having acted in connivance with the opposite party no.4, which findings apparently are without any evidence, besides being without jurisdiction. 14. In these circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order declining to accord approval to the termination of opposite party no.4 as the charges levelled against the opposite party no.4 in the F.I.R. could not be established during investigation and the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer has been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 15. 15. So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the resolution dated 18.02.2022, passed by the Regional Level Committee for grant of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 and the consequential order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, directing the petitioner to submit documents for payment of selection grade to the opposite party no.4 in furtherance of the resolution dated 18.02.2022, the aforesaid resolution states that the District Inspector of Schools had submitted a recommendation for payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 on 15.12.2021. The Committee had examined all the documents and found that the opposite party no.4 was working as Principal of the College since 28.06.2010 and he has completed the eligibility condition of having completed ten years' service on 28.06.2020. A resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the college on 06.12.2020 was also a part of the documents submitted, whereby the Managing Committee had unanimously resolved for payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 as he had completed ten years service. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Committee of Management has not submitted any other resolution. When a three member regional committee headed by the Director of Education has recorded a factual statement that the documents submitted to the three members committee included a resolution dated 06.12.2020, passed by the Committee of Management, this court does not find it proper to go into this disputed question of fact being raised by the petitioner that it had not submitted any such resolution. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that even as per the averment made in the impugned order the Committee of Management had merely recommended grant of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 on the ground that he had completed ten years service but it does not state that the petitioner had completed ten years satisfactory service, which is an essential condition of grant of selection grade pay to a teacher. 18. 18. When the Committee of Management itself recommended payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 stating that he had complete ten years service and was entitled to be granted selection grade pay, the mere fact that the resolution dated 18.02.2022 does not state that it was written in the resolution that the opposite party no.4 had completed ten years 'satisfactory' service would not affect the legality of the resolution for payment of selection grade pay to the petitioner passed by the regional level committee when the Committee of Management of the college had itself recommended payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4, which implies that the Committee of Management of the college was satisfied with the services of the opposite party no.4. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned resolution dated 18.02.2022, passed by the regional level committee recommending payment of selection grade pay to the opposite party no.4 and the consequential communication dated 13.02.2024 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad. 20. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.