C/M of Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College,Telibagh, Lko. Thru. Manager Srikant Sahu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 10304 of 2025

¶3

C/M Of Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College,Telibagh, Lko. Thru. Manager Srikant Sahu And Another .....Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Singh, Mahendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Prasad Gupta, Hari Ram Gupta

¶8

Court No. - 4

¶9

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

WRIA No. 10304 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 respondent No.7 and as such on this ground alone, the impugned order merits to be set aside.

¶22

10 . On the other hand, though learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra) yet says that once the order of suspension is dated 30.12.2024 and a period of more than 60 days have lapsed consequently the said suspension order cannot be read against the respondent No.7.

¶23

11 . Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the order of suspension of respondent No.7 as sent for approval to the D.I.O.S. has been disapproved vide order impugned dated 01.07.2025 by going into the veracity of the charges.

¶24

12 . This Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra) has categorically held that the D.I.O.S. while exercising the powers under sub Section (7) of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 only acts in a supervisory capacity and has to only see as to prima

¶25

WRIA No. 10304 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

facie the charges are having any substance but he cannot go into veracity of the said charges.

¶28

13 . As already indicated above, perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the D.I.O.S. has gone into veracity of the charges and thereafter disapproved the suspension order which order would clearly run against the principles of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College, Kanpur (supra).

¶29

14 . In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed . Order impugned dated 01.07.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

¶30

15 . The D.I.O.S. shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioners shall cooperate with the D.I.O.S. while he passes the said order. In case of non cooperation, the D.I.O.S. would be at liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners indicating their noncooperation and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶31

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶32

September 15, 2025

¶33

prateek

¶34

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M of Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College,Telibagh, Lko. Thru. Manager Srikant Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M of Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College,Telibagh, Lko. Thru. Manager Srikant Sahu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Chandra Bhan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Rajdev Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Ravindra Kumar Vs Dr. Anand Kumar Singh, v.C., Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agri. and Tech. Kanpur and 2 Others

Kul Vibhor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Laxmi Singh Vs Smt. Harshita Mathur District Magistrate Raebareli