N. Kumar, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge who has set aside the order of the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur, which had directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service as a Hindi Teacher forthwith and to pay consequential monetary benefits.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Educational Appellate Tribunal.

3. Respondent is an educational society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act which is running Dr. Ambedkar Education Society at Yenjalagere, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. The appellant was appointed as a Hindi Teacher against a clear and permanent vacancy as per the order dated 19.1.1989. The appellant had the requisite qualification of Hindi Ratna for being appointed to the said post. However, the appellant was not paid salary on the ground that the Government has not granted approval for such payment and grant-in-aid is not extended. The appellant was paid salary in installments. On the ground that the appellant had unauthorisedly remained absent in spite of three notices issued and served on the appellant, the respondent prevented the appellant from working as a Hindi Teacher in the said institution. On the contrary in his place they appointed one Mr. Rajanna. Therefore, aggrieved by the said action, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal invoking Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act').

4. Respondent after service of notice entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections. Their specific case was that, the appellant in spite of three notices being served calling upon him to resume to work, he did not joint duty. He remained absent. In his place they have appointed one Mr. Rajanna. Therefore, they set up a plea of voluntary abandonment of service. Further, they contended that, an appeal under Section 94(1) lies only when there is an order of termination of an employee from the service. In the instant case there is no order of termination. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions held that there is no order of termination, no order of termination is duly served on the appellant, even if the appellant were to remain unauthorisedly absent from service, the respondents were under an obligation to initiate disciplinary action for the said misconduct and in the said enquiry if he had been found guilty of misconduct, then only they could have terminated his services. But, instead of resorting to that legal procedure, the respondents have illegally prevented the appellant from resuming work. It amounts to removal from service and, therefore, an appeal lies against such termination. On merits it held that, admittedly when no enquiry was initiated, when the appellant was appointed after following due procedure prescribed under law, his services could not have been terminated. Therefore, it allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant into service as a Hindi Teacher forthwith. Further it also directed the respondent to pay salary which includes pay and allowances as is admissible to a Teacher in the similar Government institution, with effect from 20.1.1997. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition before this Court.

6. The learned single Judge held that, in the instant case admittedly the appellant has not been served with any order of termination. No disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The appellant was a habitual absentee and he did not attend to his duties. Therefore, the respondent had no option but to appoint another person in his place. This cannot certainly be termed as an unwritten termination, which would warrant filing of an appeal. There i