Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71105-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 76 of 2025 Appellant :- Rajguru Tomar Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjay Singh Yadav,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar,Rahul Mishra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by present appellant, whereby approval has been granted by the District Inspector of School, under Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to the suspension of the appellant. The order of District Inspector of Schools under challenge before the learned Single Judge notices that 17 charges have been levelled upon the appellant and a chargesheet has been served on him. After referring to the stand of the parties, the Inspector has concluded that charges against the appellant are serious and are supported by the documents on record. In such circumstances, approval is granted to the suspension. 2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the Inspector has not applied his mind to the gravity of charges levelled against the appellant, nor there is any application of mind on part of the Inspector to the nature of material relied upon against the appellant. It is submitted that the order of Inspector does not depict any application of mind on his part and learned Single Judge has fallen in error in affirming such order. 3. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Mishra for the respondent Committee of Management. Learned State Counsel has also been heard on behalf of respondent District Inspector of Schools. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being disposed of finally at the admission stage, itself. 5. Perusal of the record would indicate that disciplinary action has been initiated against the appellant by the Managing Committee by issuing chargesheet to him dated 11.9.2024. We have perused the chargesheet, which does not depict that any charges relating to financial defalcation or fabrication of record etc. Most of the allegations are with regard to unauthorized interference by the appellant in the affairs of the Managing Committee and making of complaint against the management. 6. From the order of the Inspector, it does not appear that he has carefully examined the charges levelled against the appellant. Merely mentioning that there are 17 charges would not suffice. What is the nature of charge and whether such charge is serious enough, so as to justify suspension would be an aspect that would require examination at the level of Inspector. Unless the Inspector does so, the very object of obtaining his approval shall be rendered meaningless. 7. Though we find substance in the contention of Sri Rahul Mishra that no definite finding on the charges are required to be returned by the Inspector at this stage but his order must reflect due application of mind to the nature of charges and the kind of evidence that prima facie supports such charges. 8. Since on the relevant parameters the consideration warranted at the level of Inspector is clearly found lacking, as such the order of Inspector cannot be sustained. The judgment of learned Single Judge in refusing to interfere in the writ petition also cannot be approved of for such reasons. 9. On behalf of respondents, it is also pointed out that disciplinary proceedings have been concluded and the matter has been referred to District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval in terms of Section 16-G(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 10. As we have noted that the order of Inspector shows non- application of mind on material aspects, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6.1.2025 is set aside. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools approving the suspension dated 25.10.2024 is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter relating to passing of the order of suspension, as also pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 16-G(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Till an appropriate order is passed, the appellant would be entitled to payment of salary and his further continuance shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It shall however be open for the Managing Committee to take work or not to take work from the appellant. Order Date :- 5.5.2025/Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad