The District Inspector of Schools must provide an opportunity for hearing before approving or disapproving a teacher's suspension order, as mandated by Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and Sri H.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.

2. Application for dismissal of the writ petition filed by Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 and application for taking short rejoinder affidavit filed by Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

3. Since, DIOS has been impleaded by name as opposite party no. 4, and no notice was issued to him, therefore, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 4, though, in the present writ petition malafide has been alleged against the opposite party no. 4 vide paragraph no. 29 but without adverting to those allegations of malafide, I am testing the impugned order only in the light of Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1921') and also in the light of the judgements rendered by this court interpreting the relevant provisions of Section 16-G of the Act 1921. By means of impugned order dated 11.02.2025, the DIOS, Lucknow has disapproved the suspension order dated 04.01.2025 passed against the opposite party no. 5. The relevant provision for the controversy in question would be sub-Section 7 and 8 of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921, which reads as under:-

"(7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force more than sixty days form the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court.

(8) If, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section."

4. The decisions of the constitutional Courts clearly mandate that if any Teacher or Head of the institution, as the case may be, has been placed under suspension, it shall be approved or disapproved by the DIOS within time frame and if the suspension order is disapproved, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the Committee of Management and the charged employee, failing which that disapproval order would vitiate. This Court in para 12 in Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2006 SCC OnLine All 602 has observed as under:-

"12. Under Clause (5) of section 16-G, the Committee of Management could suspend a teacher or a Head of the Institution on certain grounds mentioned therein. The order was forwarded under Clause (6) along with the papers prescribed under Regulation 39 of Chapter-III. These papers were required to be considered and the Inspector was required to apply his mind and was required to give the reasons while according approval or disapproval of the suspension order. In the present case, no reasons have been recorded and, therefore, it is clear, that the Inspector did not apply his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case. There is another aspect of the matter. The Committee of Management while issuing the suspension order is not required to given an opportunity of hearing to the teacher or the head of the institution. Therefore, at the stage when the order of suspension is being approved and the Inspector is required to apply his mind, it is at that stage, a bare minimum op