Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves an appeal against the order of the High Court of Karnataka, which had upheld the decision of the Educational Appellate Tribunal to set aside the termination of a lecturer's services by a private educational institution (!) .

2. The appellant institution argued that the lecturer was granted leave under specific conditions, which she subsequently violated by registering for a different higher studies course and failing to rejoin her duties as agreed (!) (!) .

3. The lecturer had applied for and was granted leave for a particular course with the understanding that she would return to duty if she did not get admission in her preferred course. However, she did not comply with the conditions, including failing to register for the course she initially intended and not returning to duty after her leave expired (!) (!) (!) .

4. The institution issued notices and show-cause notices to the lecturer, directing her to join back her duties, which she did not do, and she expressed her inability to rejoin. Despite this, the institution took steps to verify her registration status and issued further notices, culminating in her termination (!) (!) (!) .

5. The lecturer challenged her termination, claiming that no proper enquiry was conducted and that her rights to natural justice were violated. The Tribunal initially set aside her termination, but the High Court later confirmed that the institution had provided sufficient opportunity and that the termination was justified based on her admitted violations (!) (!) .

6. The court emphasized that when charges and allegations are admitted, and there is no dispute over the facts, a formal enquiry is unnecessary. The record showed that the lecturer admitted the violations, and her failure to rejoin was clear evidence supporting the institution's decision (!) (!) .

7. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the institution had given ample opportunity and had considered her explanations. The order of termination was therefore upheld as valid and legal (!) .

8. The court further noted that the order of termination did not carry any stigma and was purely an order of dismissal, not affecting her future employment prospects beyond the immediate case (!) .

9. The appeal filed by the institution was allowed, and the previous orders setting aside the termination were reversed, affirming the validity of the termination decision (!) .

10. Overall, the case underscores that in employment disputes, especially where the employee admits to violations, a formal enquiry may not be necessary, provided that the employer has given sufficient opportunity and followed due process in accordance with statutory provisions (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.