JUDGMENT : SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners andthe counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6, are taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Singh and Mr. Vikash Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief StandingCounsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3. Since in the instant petition, the pure legal question is involved, therefore, the matter is being decided at the admission stage. Notice to respondent no.5 is hereby dispensed with. 4. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.10.2025, by which the district Inspector of Schools has disapproved the resolution of Committee of Management for suspension of the services ofrespondent no. 6. 5. The contention put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that earlier, on two occasions also, the District Inspector of Schools had disapproved the suspension order and on the second time, Writ A No. 10304of 2025 was instituted, challenging such an order of disapproval, wherein, the Court has passed the order on 15.09.2025, which is quoted hereinunder:- "1. Preliminary objection and counter affidavit filed by Shri Hari Prashad Gupta, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.7 is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any objections/reply to the same as there is only a short question of law involved in the matter. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to delete respondents No.5 & 6 from the array of the parties during the course of the day. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri Hari Prashad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 6. Under challenge is the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the suspension order of the respondent No.7 dated 30.12.2024 has been disapproved. 7. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 6. Under challenge is the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the suspension order of the respondent No.7 dated 30.12.2024 has been disapproved. 7. The short question of law as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order impugned has also gone into the validity of the charges as leveled against the respondent No.7 and has held that said charges were not proved. 8. Argument of the learned cousnel for the petitioners is that power to approve or disapprove an order of suspension is vested in the District Inspector of Schools under sub Section (7) of Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921'). This Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur & Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors : [ 2018 (2) ADJ 840 ] after considering the aforesaid power has held that the D.I.O.S. has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merits of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to whether charges have any substance. 9. The argument is that even though the D.I.O.S. was fully empowered to either approve or disapprove the order of suspension that had been sent for his approval by the petitioners but by no stretch of imagination or any principle of law, the D.I.O.S. could have gone into the validity and veracity of the charges that had been leveled against the respondent No.7 and as such on this ground alone, the impugned order merits to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, though learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra) yet says that once the order of suspension is dated 30.12.2024 and a period of more than 60 days have lapsed consequently the said suspension order cannot be read against the respondent No.7. 11. 11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the order of suspension of respondent No.7 as sent for approval to the D.I.O.S. has been disapproved vide order impugned dated 01.07.2025 by going into the veracity of the charges. 12. This Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra) has categorically held that the D.I.O.S. while exercising the powers under sub Section (7) of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 only acts in a supervisory capacity and has to only see as to prima facie the charges are having any substance but he cannot go into veracity of the said charges. 13. As already indicated above, perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the D.I.O.S. has gone into veracity of the charges and thereafter disapproved the suspension order which order would clearly run against the principles of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra). 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated01.07.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. 15. The D.I.O.S. shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioners shall cooperate with the D.I.O.S. while he passes the said order. In case of non cooperation, the D.I.O.S. would be at liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners indicating their noncooperation and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. " 6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that on the last occasion also, the District Inspector of Schools, vide impugned order dated 1.7.2025, disapproved the order of suspension, against the provisions of law, therefore, this Court, while considering the ratio of judgment passed in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur & Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors : [ 2018 (2) ADJ 840 ] , had directed to pass a fresh order, within the period of two weeks and in-compliance of the order aforesaid, the present impugned order has been passed. 7. He submitted that the findings which have been recorded, in point nos. 7. He submitted that the findings which have been recorded, in point nos. 1 to 5, in the order dated 06.10.2025, is apparent that there is no application of mind by the District Inspector of Schools, on the papers sent by the petitioners under the provisions of Rule 39 of Chapter III of the regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1921') and the said findings are quoted hereinunder in verbatim:- 8. Referring the aforesaid grounds of disapproval, he submitted that so far as ground no. 1 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioners have been failed to constitute a sub-committee as per regulation 35 of the regulations made under the Act 1921, whereas, there is no mandate in regulation 35, to constitute a sub-committee, at the stage of passing the suspension order. 9. He further submitted that ground no. 2, is also apparent that the District Inspector of Schools has taken into consideration that 'the Committee of Management, the petitioner no. 1, has failed to provide the approved chargesheet to the respondent no. 6', that too is not the condition precedent for passing the suspension order as per the mandate of the Act 1921 read with provision of regulations. 10. He argued that the conclusion clause of the aforesaid order is also goes against the provision of the Act, as it has been said that 'there is no evidence available to approve the suspension order', wherein, the District Inspector of Schools should have considered the nature of the charges, as is mandated vide the provisions of section 16(G)(5) of the Act 1921. 11. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is not only against the direction of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Writ A No. 10304 of 2025, but that too is against the provisions of the Act 1921 read with the regulations. He submitted that the order impugned is also against the settled proposition of law, therefore, submission is that the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 may be quashed. 12. Per contra, Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the ground for disapproval has rightly been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools. He submitted that, in fact, the petitioner no. 12. Per contra, Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the ground for disapproval has rightly been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools. He submitted that, in fact, the petitioner no. 2 has committed unlawful activity in the College and when the voice has been raised by respondent no. 6, the present disciplinary proceedings has been instituted against him. He also submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has very well considered the evidences which were made available by the petitioners, therefore, there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in the order impugned, thus, no interference is warranted. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the version of counsel for respondent no. 6 and submitted that there is limited scope for the District Inspector of Schools to apply his mind so far as the approval or disapproval of the suspension order is concerned and he recorded the reasons by adverting that no evidence or material was available for approval of the suspension order as per the provision of Section 16(G)(5) of Act 1921, therefore, the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management has rightly been disapproved. 14. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in- compliance of the order dated 15.09.2025, passed in Writ A No. 10304 of 2025. Vide the aforesaid order, this Hon'ble Court, while considering the law settled in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur(supra), has directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider and decide the matter on merits. The relevant paragraph 18 is extracted as under:- "18. I need not detail the allegations and material in support thereof, placed by the Management before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16G acts in a supervisory capacity. He has to record brief reason to accord approval or disapproval to any order of suspension passed by the Management. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merit of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie, basis, as to whether, charges have any substance. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merit of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie, basis, as to whether, charges have any substance. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal/Teacher." 15. It has been held that brief reasons must be recorded while disapproving the suspension order, which apparently is lacking in the present matter. 16. When this Court examines the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 on law and facts, it emerges that the District Inspector of Schools, after receiving the papers from the petitioners, concluded it, on mainly five grounds, which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The ground nos. 1 & 2 is said to be the main basis of the consideration. It is said that the sub-committee was not constituted, whereas, the provisions of Section 16(G)5 as well as the regulation 35 of the regulations made under the Act 1921 do not provide such provision. Section 16(G)(5) of the Act 1921 is extracted hereinunder:- "16-G (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the management, unless in the opinion of the management- (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial." 17. So far as the provision for constituting sub-committee is concerned, that has been prescribed under regulation 35, which in fact regarding the enquiry and not for passing the suspension order. The regulation 35 reads as under:- 18. So far as the ground no. 2, which reads that 'no approved chargesheet was served upon respondent no. 6' can not be the zone of consideration of approval or disapproval of the suspension order, whereas, the District Inspector Of Schools could have applied his mind on the evidence/records sent by the Committee of Management, under Regulation 39 and the provisions of section 16(G)(5) should have strictly been followed. Therefore, the second ground also goes against the mandate of the act and regulations. 19. Therefore, the second ground also goes against the mandate of the act and regulations. 19. The third ground is also not in consonance with the provisions of the Act 1921, as it has been said that the chargesheet dated 10.01.2025, is not approved by the Committee of Management,' whereas, the District Inspector Of Schools should have applied his mind on the material/evidence regarding the suspension order and not the chargesheet. 20. Further, this Court finds that the District Inspector of Schools, while disapproving the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management has said that since no evidence was made available by the Committee of Management for approval of the suspension order, therefore, the conditions prescribed under Section 16(G)(5) are not fulfilled, thus, the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management has been disapproved, whereas, Section 16(G)(5) laid the first ground for consideration regarding the nature of the charges and there is not a single whisper in the order dated 06.10.2025, to discuss the seriousness of the charges, thus, there seems to be the non-application of mind of the District Inspector of Schools. 21. This Court is also aware of the judgment and order rendered in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur(supra), wherein, it is specifically held that the District Inspector of Schools while taking decision regarding approval or disapproval, on suspension order proposed by the Committee of Management, shall record, brief reasons, but so far as the case in hand is concerned that too is missing, as no reason has been recorded, for disapproval of the recommendation of the Committee of Management, in the order impugned dated 06.10.2025. Consequently, the order dated 06.10.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 22. Ergo, the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, is hereby quashed. 23. The matter is relegated back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order, on the papers already sent by the petitioner, on 04.01.2025, as well as the objection given by respondent no. 6, within a period of five weeks from the date of this order, while strictly adhering with the relevant provisions of law. 24. Parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the District Inspector of Schools concerned. 25. It is further provided that no party shall take unnecessary adjournments. 26. The present writ petition is allowed accordingly.