The District Inspector of Schools has the authority under Section 16g(3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, to approve, disapprove, reduce, or enhance the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management in disciplinary proceedings against a teacher.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was subjected to disciplinary inquiry on account of certain charges. After the inquiry is over, the Managing Committee by its resolution dated 22. 7. 1978 has resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service on account of his being found guilty of the charges in the domestic inquiry. The said resolution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for according approval. By an order dated 19. 10. 1978, the District Inspector of Schools instead of according approval reduced the punishment as contended in the said order. Two appeals were filed against the said order dated 19. 10. 1978. One by the delinquent petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11964 of 1981 and the other by the Committee of Management being the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10156 of 1981. The said two appeals were decided by the Deputy Director of Education on 24. 6. 1981. The Deputy Director of Education had also confirmed the finding of guilt but took a lenient view on humanitarian ground considering past service of the petitioner and had concurred with the reduction of the punishment by the District inspector of Schools. The said two orders have been challenged both by the delinquent employee and the Committee of Management in two separate writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 11964 of 1981 and 10156 of 1981 respectively.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the parties had addressed the Court on Writ Petition No. 11964 of 1981 when it was listed without other writ petition and contended that it is necessary to decide the matter along with the other writ petition as well.

( 3 ) IN fact both the counsels concluded their argument on the case but for the purposes of listing, the matter along with the other writ petition it was directed to be listed today along with the Writ petition No. 10156 of 1981 and accordingly, this matter is before this Court.

( 4 ) THE case of the delinquent petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11964 of 1981 in his defence, whether he has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in other writ petition or not. Similarly, the defence of the Committee of Management who is respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 11964 of 1981 is their defence in Writ Petition No. 10156 of 1981. Therefore, the address in Writ Petition no. 11964 of 1981 appears to be complete in respect to both the matters.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the delinquent, petitioner has challenged the impugned order only to the extent whereby it was mentioned that the petitioner shall be entitled to salary from the date of his resuming duty and prayed that he should be paid full arrears for the entire period since the date of his suspension. Thus, it appears that the delinquent petitioner has not challenged the finding of guilt by both the authorities concurrently, he is only aggrieved with that part of the punishment. If the finding of guilt is there, the petitioner is liable to be punished.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties had let me through the record of the case. It appears that despite such finding of guilt in respect of the charges of misappropriation of fund, it has taken a lenient view. Admittedly, the petitioner had been holding certain amount belonging to the school in an account opened in his name as principal of the school, being separate account and not the account maintained by the school. Such an act is surely a misconduct. Inasmuchas, as the principal he is not entitled to open any separate account than that of the account maintained by the school authority. There is no resolution by the Committee of Management authorising the principal to open any separate account. Then again an account even if it is opened to operate an account in that event the account should be in the name of the school and by the authority of the management. The person entitled to operate the account has to get his signatures attested through the District Inspector of Schools. The principal cannot on its own open the account and operate the same in respect