Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61116 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5288 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management, Kalka Prasad Ram Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Shukla,C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against private respondent no.4 and thereafter an order of termination was passed on 01.02.2025 which was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools has disapproved the aforesaid order on the ground that the procedure has not been followed and the termination order has been passed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that what has been communicated to the District Inspector of Schools is the decision of the Management to terminate the private respondent no.4 the same will come into effect only on the approval by the District Inspector of Schools and as such the finding recorded in the impugned order that the required procedure was not followed is incorrect in law. It is further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has formed a 3 member committee to enquire into the allegations against the private respondent no.4 although under Section 16 (g) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 there exist no such power with District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools can only accord approval or disapproval to the proposal for termination of private respondent no.4 which in the present case has not been done and the District Inspector of Schools is awaiting the enquiry report of the 3 Member Committee. The formation of 3 Member Committee is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that the order has been passed on 01.02.2025 terminating the services of respondent no.4 and thereafter papers were sent to District Inspector of Schools. He submits that termination of respondent no.4 prior to the approval is not permissible under law and as such the termination order has been disapproved. He further submits that respondent no.4 has been stopped from working in the institution. 5. On a query being made to the learned counsel for respondent no.4 whether there is any order passed by petitioner taking over the charge from the respondent no.4, learned counsel for respondent no.4 fairly submits that no such order has been received by the respondent no.4. 6. It is to be seen that prima facie order dated 01.02.2025 seems to be an order taking decision for termination of the services of respondent no.4. The law is settled that the termination order of the Committee of Management will come into effect only on the approval by the District Inspector of Schools. At this stage, there is neither any approval of the termination proposal. The disapproval is on a technical ground by stating that the order dated 01.02.2025 is in fact a termination order which prima facie in view of the Court in not tenable in law as the same is only a proposal as the Management at the first instance to take decision on termination of services of employee and thereafter sent it to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. 7. At this stage, learned senior counsel, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel agreed that the impugned order may be set aside and District Inspector of Schools may be directed to pass order on approval or disapproval on the proposal sent by Management for termination of the services of the respondent no.4 as proposed by order dated 01.02.2025. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, is hereby quashed and the matter is referred back to the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, to pass a fresh order regarding approval or disapproval on the proposal of the Management for terminating the services of respondent no.4 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Till approval of termination of respondent no.4, he would be paid salary by the petitioners. It is made clear that there would be no impediment under law in working of respondent no.4 till the time proposal for termination is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, however, subject to the condition that respondent no.4 shall maintain discipline in the institution 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad