The District Inspector of Schools must evaluate charges on a prima facie basis without delving into their validity; procedural adherence is critical in suspension cases under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners andthe counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6, are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Singh and Mr. Vikash Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief StandingCounsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

3. Since in the instant petition, the pure legal question is involved, therefore, the matter is being decided at the admission stage. Notice to respondent no.5 is hereby dispensed with.

4. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.10.2025, by which the district Inspector of Schools has disapproved the resolution of Committee of Management for suspension of the services ofrespondent no. 6.

5. The contention put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that earlier, on two occasions also, the District Inspector of Schools had disapproved the suspension order and on the second time, Writ A No. 10304of 2025 was instituted, challenging such an order of disapproval, wherein, the Court has passed the order on 15.09.2025, which is quoted hereinunder:-

"1. Preliminary objection and counter affidavit filed by Shri Hari Prashad Gupta, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.7 is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any objections/reply to the same as there is only a short question of law involved in the matter.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to delete respondents No.5 & 6 from the array of the parties during the course of the day.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri Hari Prashad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

6. Under challenge is the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the suspension order of the respondent No.7 dated 30.12.2024 has been disapproved.

7. The short question of law as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order impugned has also gone into the validity of the charges as leveled against the respondent No.7 and has held that said charges were not proved.

8. Argument of the learned cousnel for the petitioners is that power to approve or disapprove an order of suspension is vested in the District Inspector of Schools under sub Section (7) of Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921'). This Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur & Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors : [ 2018 (2) ADJ 840] after considering the aforesaid power has held that the D.I.O.S. has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merits of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to whether charges have any substance.

9. The argument is that even though the D.I.O.S. was fully empowered to either approve or disapprove the order of suspension that had been sent for his approval by the petitioners but by no stretch of imagination or any principle of law, the D.I.O.S. could have gone into the validity and veracity of the charges that had been leveled against the responde