The District Inspector of Schools must provide brief reasons for approving or disapproving a suspension, as per Section 16g (7) and (8) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the committee of Management, Sri Ram Model Inter College, Thora, district Gautam Buddh Nagar seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4th December, 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Buddh Nagar, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition, and other consequential reliefs.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :

In the district of Gautam Buddh Nagar, there is a College, known as Sri Ram Model Inter college, Thora. It is a recognised Intermediate College and is also aided one. The respondent no. 4, Krishna Kumar, is the Principal of the College. The committee of management in Its meeting held on 19th October, 2003 passed a resolution to place respondent No. 4 under suspension. Consequently, the Manager, vide order of the same date, placed the respondent No. 4 under suspension. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Buddh nagar on 26th October, 2003 for granting approval. It appears that notices were Issued by the district Inspector of Schools and he after considering the matter on record, vide order dated 4th december, 2003 declined to grant approval to the suspension of the respondent No. 4.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri V. K. Singh, on behalf of the petitioners, Sri J. C. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri R. S. Kushwaha, on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for the counter-affidavit in accordance with the Rules of court.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the order of suspension of the respondent No. 4, has not given any independent reason as to why suspension is not correct. He further submitted that the District Inspector of schools has only mentioned that the proceedings taken by the Committee of Management for placing the respondent No. 4 under suspension is defective and further the charges levelled against the respondent No. 4 has not been established. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpur, khorsena, Ballia through its Manager Sri Dhanush Dhari Singh Yadav v. District Inspector of schools, Ballia and Anr. , 1988 AWC 623, wherein this Court has held that the District Inspector of Schools must record reasons for granting or refusing to grant approval to an order of suspension although a detailed judgment is not required. He further relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Committee of Management, Maharajgunj Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajgunj and Anr. , 1999 (4) AWC 2783 : 2000 (1) LBESR 676 (All), wherein this Court has held that the provisions relating to grant of approval or disapproval of suspension of a teacher including a Principal, as provided under Section 16g (7) and (8) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is not an empty formality. He is required to address himself to the ground on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie, supporting the charges levelled against the Head of the Institution or the teacher, as the case may be. This Court further held that in case the charges of the nature referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 16g are prima facie supported by evidence then in that event the inspector cannot withhold approval. On the other hand, in case the charges are of trivial nature and are not covered by the charges mentioned in Sub-section (5) of Section 16g and/or there are no prima facie documents or material in