Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Mishra for respondent No. 3.

2. The third respondent Yogesh Kumar, who was working as Accounts clerk in Balwant Rural Engineering Institute, Bichpuri, Agra, which is a Technical Institute governed by the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962, was placed under suspension by the Principal, (Petitioner No. 2) by order dated 7 April 2006 on the basis of resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 29 March 2006. He was thereafter served with a charge-sheet containing charges of insubordination, inefficiency, dereliction of duty and embezzlement of the Government grant. In the disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty of the charges. Consequently, the petitioners resolved to inflict the punishment of removal upon him. The proposal was sent to the Director, Pravidhik Shiksha, seeking approval to the punishment proposed. The Director, Technical Education, U.P. granted approval to the punishment of removal from service on 23 April 2007 followed by order dated 14 May 2007 by the petitioner removing respondent No. 3 from service. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (respondent No. 2). It seems that the appeal filed by the third respondent was taken up for consideration by a Sub-Committee of the Board. The Sub-Committee passed an order on 7 June 2008 holding that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the charges of misconduct and consequently revoked the removal of respondent No. 3 and substituted the punishment with that of withholding of three increment with future effect. It was further directed that during the period of suspension, the third respondent shall not be entitled to any other amount except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. Aggrieved thereby, the Committee of Management as well as the Principal have filed the instant writ petition.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners applied for amendment of the writ petition thereby challenging the resolution of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24.12.2009 whereby the Board granted approval to the decision of the Sub-Committee reducing the punishment. The amendment application was allowed by this Court and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Institution Receiving Grant-In-Aid From the Government Regulations, 1996 (Regulations), framed under Section 23 of the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962, appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 33 lies to the Board and it alone was competent to decide the appeal. It is submitted that the Sub-Committee of the Board before whom the appeal was placed and which resolved to reduce the punishment was not competent to deal with the appeal. It is thus sought to be suggested that the decision taken by the Sub-Committee was without jurisdiction and so also the decision of the Board taken in pursuance thereof. It is further submitted that the decision of the Board as well as the Sub-Committee does not disclose any reason for reducing the punishment. The direction for substituting the punishment is by way of a non-speaking order.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 supported the decision of the Board reducing the punishment. It is urged that the Board was competent to constitute the Sub-Committee to help it in discharge of its function. It is submitted that since the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee was duly placed before the Board and thus it cannot be said that the decision to reduce the punishment was taken by the Sub-Committee. He further submitt