MATHUR, J. - (1.) TO assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 7. 11. 2003 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), this petition for writ is preferred by the petitioners. The factual matrix, that is necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the cause involved, is as follows:-
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a society (hereinafter referred to as "the society") registered under the Societies Registration Act, the petitioner No. 2 is school (hereinafter referred to as "the school") run by the society, the petitioner No. 3 is the President of the society and the petitioner No. 4 is principal of the school run by the society and also Secretary of the society. Being a minority institution the petitioner society and the school is having protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the delinquent employee") while working as Teacher Gr. III at the school was served with a charge sheet dated 13. 4. 1999 alleging definite charges of misconduct as under:- " 1) Charge No. 1. You were absent from duty from 10th March'99 to 19-3-99. On 20th March'99 you were submitted false medical certificate, not only this left the station without permission/or information. This act of yours is a misconduct. 2) Charge No. 2. On 20th March'99 at 8. 30 a. m. when Principal enquired about your absence instead of replying you flung the leave application at the Principal. When Principal advised you to behave properly you shouted and you used abusive words and threatened the Principal in the presence of clerical staff. This act of yours is a misbehaviour insubordination. 3) Charge No. 3. On 23rd March, 99 when suspension order was given to you by the peon, after reading, you refused to accept the same and came to the office of the Principal and uttered loose words. This act of yours is misbehaviour. " An explanation submitted by the delinquent employee to the charges alleged was placed before the Managing Committee of the school on 24. 4. 1999 and the committee after considering it was of the view to hold an inquiry, accordingly, it was decided to request one Mrs. Snehlata Sharma, a retired Additional Director of Education, Government of Rajasthan to act as inquiry officer. Relevant to note here that petitioner No. 4 Sister Febina, who placed and read the charge sheet before the Managing Committee being its Secretary, considered it not proper to participate in the proceedings of the Committee as the delinquent employee was charge-sheeted on basis of a report given by her being Principal of the school. The request made on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 to act as inquiry officer was accepted by Mrs. Snehlata Sharma and on 20. 10. 1999 she recorded statements of five prosecution witnesses viz. Sister Febina, Principal of the school (PW-1), Sister Celestine, Incharge, K. G. Section (PW-2), Shri Gulab Chand (PW-3), Shri Raju (PW-4) and Smt. Sushamma (PW- 5 ). Certain documents (Ex. P/1 to P/10) were also produced by the prosecution before the inquiry officer. Copies of the statements given by the prosecution witnesses and the documents referred above were supplied to the delinquent employee on 21. 10. 1999. No evidence was produced by the delinquent employee despite opportunity. The inquiry officer accordingly after hearing both the parties and considering the written arguments forwarded by them submitted her report to disciplinary authority on 19. 12. 1999 with finding of guilt for all the three charges. Under a notice to show cause dated 10. 1. 2000 a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the delinquent employee seeking her comments/explanation for the findings given by the inquiry officer. In response to that the delinquent employee made a request to drop disciplinary action against her in following terms:-
(3.) VKIDK izklafxd i= fnukad 17-1-2000 dks izkir gqvka ftlds lkfk tkap fjiksvz dh Qksvks dksih Hkh feyha bl lecu/k esa tkap fjiksvz ds xq. kkoxq. k ij dksbz fvii. kh fd;s fcuk esjk bruk gh fuosnu gs fd dksbz 'kkflr vf/kjksfir fd;s fcuk esjs fo:) ;g dk;zokgh lgh lekir dj nh tkosa esa vkidh vkhkkjh jgwwxha** The matter was again discussed and a resolution was taken to "terminate" the delinquent employee from service by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 17. 2. 2000. An order dated 19. 2. 2000 was accordingly passed by the Secretary of the society. Before proceeding further it shall be useful to mention that a disciplinary inquiry was also conducted against Mrs. Ruby Samuel who happens to be real sister of the delinquent employee and was also working as Teacher at the school. She too was subjected to the inquiry for the charge of remaining absent from duties unauthorisedly for the same period that of the present delinquent employee and also for extending a false reason to remain absent from duties. However, while considering her case for imposition of penalty a lenient view was taken and she was allowed to resume duties by forfetting her additional wages for the period of suspension. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19. 2. 2000 the delinquent employee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal inter-alia on the ground that before effecting termination no prior approval of the Director, Education was obtained as required by proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989" ). The Tribunal by its order dated 19. 11. 2001 accepted the appeal by declaring the order dated 19. 2. 2000 void with a direction to reinstate the delinquent employee in service with all consequential benefits. The order aforesaid came to be set aside by Division Bench of this Court under its order dated 7. 4. 2003 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2002 preferred by the present petitioners. The Division Bench while accepting the writ petition referred above directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the delinquent employee afresh in accordance with law without considering and ignoring the issue about absence of prior approval before making an order of dismissal/removal. On remission, the Tribunal re-heard the appeal and accepted the same by the order impugned. ;