( 1 ) THE question that arises in this Writ appeal is whether a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution can be placed under suspension in contemplation of or pending departmental enquiry for a period more than 4 months under any circumstance in the teeth of the bar contained under subsection (3) of Section 79 of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 (for short the Act ). Incidentally, the question whether the bar contained in clauses (a)and (b) of subsection (3) of Section 79 of the Act is mandatory or directory only also arises. These questions arise for our consideration and decision in the following factual background.

( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed as Head master of the Krista Cement Works employees Educational Society High school, the third respondent herein on 11-11-1982 and the post of Head Master is admitted to grant-in-aid. When the appellant was serving as Head Master of the third respondent-School, the Secretary and Correspondent of the School issued a composite proceeding dated 21-06-1999 alleging that the appellant did not disburse scholarship monies to the students fully and in time; that the appellant took monies ranging from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 450/- from the students towards the examination fee payable by them in excess of the prescribed fee; that the appellant demanded a sum of rs. 20,000/- from a lady Craft teacher as an extraneous consideration to continue her services and placing the appellant under suspension with effect from 23-06-1999 till further orders.

( 3 ) THE appellant complaining that the secretary and Correspondent of the third respondent-School is not the appropriate authority to place him under suspension pending enquiry, and that only the executive Committee of Krista Cements works Employees Educational Society (for short the Society ) which is managing the third respondent-School is the competent authority to take any disciplinary action against him, and that his continued suspension beyond the period of two months is violative of the bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 79 of the Act filed writ Petition No. 2111 of 2000 in this Court praying for Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in not reinstating the petitioner into service with effect from 23-08-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of section 79 (3) (b) of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to forthwith reinstate him into service and pay him full salary with effect from 23-08-1999 after duly sanctioning annual increment. The third respondent opposed that writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit. In the counter- affidavit, it was claimed that the correspondent of the third respondent- school is the General Secretary of the society. The Correspondent also claimed that after his election as General Secretary, he was nominated as Correspondent as provided under the bye-laws 01 the Society and his nomination as Correspondent was approved by the Educational authorities. The Correspondent claimed that after he assumed the office of the Correspondent, he came to know that the appellant misappropriated huge amounts and that necessiated the framing of the charges against the appellant. The appellant refused to receive the charge-sheet. Therefore, notice of enquiry was also published in the newspapers. The enquiry was commenced on 15-08-1999 and it was completed on 30-09-1999. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and the management of the School accepted the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant is guilty of the charges and the same was reported to the Regional Joint Director of education as well as District Educational officer. In place of the appellant, an in- charge Head Master was appointed and that appointment was approved by the educational authorities. Therefore, reinstatement of the appellant into service at this stage does not arise. The management o