The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges must be specific and supported by evidence, and the enquiry must adhere to the principles of natural justice. Additionally, regulatory measures apply to minority educational institutions, and the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer.

V. Jagannathan, J.— In this writ petition the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in EAT No. 3/09 is called in question and the petitioner-society prays for setting aside the order of the tribunal which has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and had set aside the order of termination issued by the management to the respondent.

2. This is the second round of litigation between the parties, in as much as, the respondent herein was earlier dismissed from service on 21.4.07 and the said dismissal order was called in question before the tribunal and the tribunal had set aside the order of dismissal and in turn the present petitioner society came up before this court in writ petition and this court confirmed the order of the tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner-society again placed the respondent under suspension and held an enquiry against him in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent. The enquiry officer held the charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as proved and charge No. 3 was held to be not proved. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner once again dismissed the respondent from its services. Again the respondent approached the tribunal in. EAT Appeal No. 3/09 and the tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the order of termination by its judgment dated 15.4.10. It is this order of the tribunal that is questioned in this petition once again by the society.

3. I have heard learned Counsel Sri. Baliga for the petitioner and Sri. H. Somanathayya for the respondent and perused the entire papers.

4. Learned Counsel for the society argued that the enquiry officer had found the charges levelled against the respondent proved except in respect of charge No. 3 and the tribunal on the other hand had set aside the order of termination passed by the society on the footing that the charges were not proved at the enquiry. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the evidence placed before the enquiry officer by the society had established the charge levelled against the respondent and all the witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent and therefore no infirmity can be found in the enquiry proceedings nor in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer.

5. To reinforce the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel took me through the evidence of the witnesses examined before the enquiry officer and various documents. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the necessity of obtaining previous approval by the management does not arise and even the tribunal has taken the very same view as regards the need for obtaining the previous approval from the competent authority. It is his submission that, being a minority institution, the petitioner society framed its own rules to regulate the affairs of the educational institution and therefore the tribunal could not have interfered with the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner-society. Learned Counsel also relied on the decisions reported in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 484, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, AIR 2005 SC 1924 and University of Delhi and Another Vs. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 SC 1873 in support of his submission.

6. Referring to the observations of the tribunal as regards charge No. 5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the tribunal has accepted charge No. 5 having been proved, but however, it only questioned the punishment that was given to the respondent and had opined that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge. Under these circumstances, the order of the tribunal be set aside by allowing this writ petition.

7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that, the E.A.T. has considered all the aspects of the matter in detail and has found that the charge framed itself was vague and secondly, the e