( 1 ) ACCORDING to petitioners charges contemplated against respondent No. 4 and communicated to him and further charges which were still to be communicated after investigation were all such as would amount to breach of the code of conduct by respondent No. 4 and, therefore, invited disciplinary action. It was for this reason that the Managing Committee took action u/s 8 (4) read with Rule 115. In as much as prior approval of the Director was necessary to enforce suspension, this approval was sought by the communication dated 3. 9. 84. The approval was declined, as noticed earlier, by the Director s communication dated 11. 9. 84 In what circumstances and by what process such approval could be withheld or declined is the moot question.

( 2 ) AS we read the Act and the relevant Rules, we are of the opinion that in case of unaided schools, the principles of internal management being by and large unfetterd has to be observed. There is no doubt that there exists a regulatory power but it can be exercised by Director of Education only on cogent and rational grounds. Unless the action of the Managing Committee is malafide or absolutely arbitrary, the director can not