Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first, second and third respondent and Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

2. Writ petition is being decided at admission stage, on consent, without calling for counter-affidavit as per Rules of the Court.

3. The facts, inter se parties, is not in dispute. Committee of Management (Management) of D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kakwan, District Kanpur Nagar, by the instant petition is assailing the order dated 3 November 2017 passed by the second respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, disapproving the suspension of the fourth respondent-Principal of the institution under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Act, 1921), and Regulations framed thereunder.

4. The Management in an emergent meeting held on 14 September 2017 resolved to place the fourth respondent under suspension and initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. Pursuant thereof, charge-sheet dated 30 September 2017, was served upon the fourth respondent, copy of which was endorsed to the office of the second respondent on 3 October 2017. On the representation dated 18 September 2017, filed by the fourth respondent, the second respondent summoned the parties for submissions. It is alleged that copy of the written statement submitted by the fourth respondent was not made available to the petitioner. The impugned order, upon hearing the parties, disapproved the suspension order primarily on three grounds :

(i) that petitioner failed to produce substantive evidence in support of the charge-sheet, therefore, prima facie, charges are not established;

(ii) that no preliminary enquiry was held before passing of the suspension order;

(iii) that relevant papers in terms of Regulation 39, Chapter-III was not supplied to the second respondent within stipulated prescribed period;

(iv) On previous three occasion, the fourth respondent was placed under suspension which, was disapproved.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order, which is not in terms of the law settled interpreting the scope and ambit of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of Act, 1921. It is urged that the allegation against the fourth respondent is very serious, if proved, would entail either dismissal from service or reversion in rank. Allegation, primarily against the fourth respondent is that he permitted a religious organization to hold “Shri Ram Katha” by Sri Shantnu Ji Maharaj, from 21 September 2017 to 25 September 2017, in the premises of the institution during college session. It is, further, alleged that posters to that effect came up in the city and its vicinity, thereafter, pamphlets were circulated, wherein, the venue was the institution. In support of the allegation, documents ten in number was supplied which is part of the charge-sheet, which include copy of hordings, hand-bill, posters, invitation card, copy of money receipts, copy of the communication of the Organizing Committee, copy of the letter seeking explanation from the fourth respondent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would not dispute the material fact, but, would submit that the Management had given approval for holding the function, therefore, the religious function was being organized. Learned Senior Counsel would refute the allegation and would urge that approval was accorded under certain conditions to avoid embarrassment created by the fourth respondent, which, however, was not accepted, either by the Organizer or the District Education Officer including the District Administration, therefore, no approval was granted.

7. It was the fourth respondent, who at his own end, had initiated holding of the function, and it is him, who went ahead in permitting the organizers to hold the function in the college premises