JUDGMENT : SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Udai Veer Singh and Mr. Brijendra Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6 and perused the records. 2. The challenge is laid to the order dated 09-07-2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow, whereby the suspension of the opposite party no. 6 has been disapproved. 3. Briefly stated facts, are that Chukti Bhandar Girls Intermediate College, Lucknow(hereafter referred to as ‘College’) is recognized by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board and the same receives grant-in-aid from the state government. Smt. Shubhra Pandey was working as Principal of the college on adhoc basis, who retired from service on 29-02-2024 as she took voluntary retirement and the opposite party no. 6, namely, Dr. Suman Shukla, Lecturer(Civics) took the charge of the post of Principal of the college, on officiating basis, on 01- 03-2024. Several complaints were reached to the committee regarding uncalled for behaviour of opposite party no. 6, towards teaching and non-teaching staffs of the college, whereafter, in prima-facie, enquiry, the complaint was found correct and therefore, the management directed the opposite party no. 6 to hand over the charge to the second senior most Lecturer(History) namely, Smt. Sunita and this proposal was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, whereafter, her signature was attested and for this reason, the opposite party no. 6 became annoyed and started raising complaints against the petitioners. 4. In the meeting of the committee of the management dated 08-07-2024, an unanimous decision was taken. The opposite party no. 6 denied to hand over the charge to the newly appointed officiating Principal and even after several proposal of the committee of management and the order by the manager, the same was not complied with. During the period of officiating charge of Principal, the opposite party no. 6 committed many serious financial as well as administrative irregularities, by which, not only the reputation of the college, became demean, but, financial loss occurred as well. In this view of the matter, the committee of management took a decision to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the opposite party no. 6, regarding the financial embezzlement and misconduct and she was put under suspension. The decision taken by the committee of management regarding suspension of opposi te party no. In this view of the matter, the committee of management took a decision to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the opposite party no. 6, regarding the financial embezzlement and misconduct and she was put under suspension. The decision taken by the committee of management regarding suspension of opposi te party no. 6 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (II), Lucknow for it’s approval, whereafter, the opposite party no. 6 submitted the representation on 19-02-2025, before the Director, Secondary Education, who instructed the District Inspector of Schools to do the needful within 15 days, whereafter, the District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow issued a letter on 27-03-2025 to Dr. Ragini Mishra, Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Narhi Lucknow and Smt. Ankita Singh, Principal, Government Girls Intermediate College, Chhoti Jubliee, Lucknow, directing them to make spot inspection and submit their report, who thereafter visited premises of the college and met with the Manager as well as the opposite party no. 6 and teaching and non-teaching staffs of the college and submitted a report. Thereafter, the order dated 13-07-2024 passed by the petitioner no. 2, was disapproved. Subsequently, on 16-05-2025, an ex-parte order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools (II), Lucknow without referring the enquiry report dated 08-04- 2025 and the representation dated 09-04-2025, which was assailed by the petitioners while preferring Writ A No. 5907 of 2025, which was allowed vide Judgment and Order dat ed 29-05-2025 and the matter was remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools, while quashing the impugned order therein, dated 16-05-2025, for taking a decision afresh, in accordance with law, and after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, which was served in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and thereafter, the notice on 13-06-2025 was issued to the petitioners and the opposite party no. 6, fixing a date of hearing on 19-06-2025, whereafter, the petitioner no. 2 appeared in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and sought adjournment and thereafter, vide letter dated 20-06-2025, the date for hearing was fixed on 25-06-2025, while requiring the presence of the parties. 5. On the date of hearing, i.e. on 25-06-2025, the petitioner no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 appeared in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and sought adjournment and thereafter, vide letter dated 20-06-2025, the date for hearing was fixed on 25-06-2025, while requiring the presence of the parties. 5. On the date of hearing, i.e. on 25-06-2025, the petitioner no. 2 and opposite party no. 6 appeared in the office of the District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow, but, one Smt. Manisha Dwivedi, Deputy Inspector, Angilo Indian School having the charge of D.I.O.S., was present as Incharge D.I.O.S., before whom, the reply was submitted, in response to the notice dated 20-06-2025 and the petitioner no. 2 was told by the Incharge, District Inspector of Schools that she is authorized to accept the documents, but, she is not authorized for affording the oral opportunity of hearing and it is also informed that the date for personal hearing shall be given to the parties, for the next date, which will be informed to them later on. After 25-06-2025, the impugned order has been passed on 09- 07-2025, while disapproving the suspension order resolved by the petitioners. 6. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the very first day, the opposite party no. 6, Dr. Suman Shukla had become challenge to the administration of the college ad she had committed several irregularities, financial as well as administrative, both, and when this fact came into the knowledge of the committee of management, the preliminary enquiry was done and when it was found that she is involved in committing such irregularities, an enquiry was contemplated and the opposite party no. 6 was put under suspension. He submitted that after the order passed by this court in Writ C No. 8708 of 2024, the matter proceeded but, on the date fixed i.e. on 25-06-2025, the Incharge, District Inspector of Schools had received the documents and the petitioner no. 2 was told that the date for personal hearing will be fixed by the District Inspector of Schools, but directly, the order dated 09-07-2025 has been passed and the petitioners have been deprived of the invaluable right of fair opportunity of hearing, before the District Inspector of Schools. 7. In addition, he argued that as per the settled proposition of law, it is not permitted that the matter will be heard by one authority and the final order would be passed by another authority. 8. 7. In addition, he argued that as per the settled proposition of law, it is not permitted that the matter will be heard by one authority and the final order would be passed by another authority. 8. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order dated 09-07-2025 is against the first principle i.e. fair opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that from the very first day, the petitioners were not pleased with the opposite party no. 6 as the opposite party no. 6 has refuted to act upon the dictates of the petitioners,which were not in consonance with law. He added that order impugned is enough to show that the opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners as the date was fixed on 25-06-2025 and the petitioner no. 2 appeared and submitted the written statement and the documents as well. He also submits that the impugned order is not without jurisdiction as the same has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, as is provided under the Intermediate Education Act,1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1921’) read with the regulations made thereunder. He submits that the order dated 09-07-2025 has been challenged for the sake of challenge only and there is no valid reason or ground to assail the same. Therefore, submission is that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of record, it is apparent that the college is recognized and an aided institution and the provisions of ‘Act, 1921’ and the regulations made thereunder readwith U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and Other Employees), Act, 1971, are very well applicable. 11. The opposite party no. 6 was given officiating charge of the Principal of the college and after some time, it came into the knowledge of the petitioners that certain irregularities on financial and administrative sides are caused by her and therefore, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the full fledged enquiry was contemplated and the opposite party no. 11. The opposite party no. 6 was given officiating charge of the Principal of the college and after some time, it came into the knowledge of the petitioners that certain irregularities on financial and administrative sides are caused by her and therefore, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the full fledged enquiry was contemplated and the opposite party no. 6 was placed under suspension by the decision taken by committee of management of the college and once the same was sent for approval by the District Inspector of Schools, which once disapproved and the same was challenged vide Writ A No. 5907 of 2025,wherein the order of disapproval dated 16-05-2025 was quashed and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass a fresh order, whereafter the order impugned dated 09-07-2025 has been passed. 12. The mute question involved in this matter is that whether the proper and fair opportunity of hearing is accorded to the petitioners, while passing the order dated 09-07-2025. 13. When this court examines the aforesaid question, it is apparent that in compliance of the order dated 29-05- 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 5907 of 2025, the District Inspector of Schools, proceeded to take a decision on the suspension order passed against the opposite party no. 6, whereafter, the date was fixed on 20-06-2025, and subsequently, on 25-06-2025. It emerges from the impugned order itself that on 25-06-2025, one Manisha Dwivedi, Deputy Inspector, Angilo Indian School was Incharge as District of Schools(II) Lucknow, who took the written statement as well as other documents and as per the case of the petitioner no. 2, he was informed that he would be given opportunity of hearing, subsequently. After 25-06-2025, the order has been passed on 09-07-2025, wherein it is mentioned as follows :- 14. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the authority, who was holding charge of the District Inspector of Schools, has concluded the hearing on 25-06-2025, whereas the order impugned has been passed after about 14 days i.e. on 09-07-2025 by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the District Inspector Schools-II, Lucknow. 15. This court is aware of the law rendered in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another , reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 . Rakesh Kumar, the District Inspector Schools-II, Lucknow. 15. This court is aware of the law rendered in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another , reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 . In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes empty formality, which offends basic principle of judicial procedure. 16. In another case reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258, Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs Designated Authority and Others , the same law is adopted as is held in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao(Supra) 17. The order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is apparent that hearing was completed by the Incharge District Inspector of Schools namely, Manisha Dwivedi, but, opportunity of hearing has not been afforded prior to pass the said order and therefore, the analogy drawn in the aforementioned cases, wherein the law has been settled, is also applicable to the present case. 18. This court has also failed to understand that why the District Inspector of Schools was in hurry to pass the order impugned, even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, the whole proceeding is doubted. 19. Consequently, this court finds that the order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is passed, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, thus, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 20. Resultantly, the order dated 09-07-2025 is hereby quashed. 21. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow to pass order afresh, while affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the opposite party no. 6 and the other stake holders, if any,within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 22. The petitioners as well as the opposite party no. 6 are directed to cooperate with the proceedings, as is directed to be completed by the District Inspector of Schools(II), Lucknow. 23. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly 24. Consequences to follow.