( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order Gujarat Secondary Education the order passed by the Secondary Education Tribunal confirming the order passed by the District Education Officer, Kheda. Tribunal in Appeal No. 18 of 1979 whereby the Tribunal refused to grant approval to the action of the petitioner-Management to dismiss the respondent No. 1 from service. The said judgment and order is dated 28-2-1980 and produced at annexure "f" to the petition. the D. E. O.- respondent No. 1 herein vide his order, dated 4/10/1979 refused to grant permission to the proposed action of dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service in exercise of his power under Sec. 36 (1) (b ). The said order of the Dist. Education Officer is confirmed by the Tribunal and being aggrieved by the said order the school management has filed the present petition.

( 2 ) BEFORE I deal with the legal submissions made by Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Advocate for petitioner, short facts giving raise to the present petition are stated hereinbelow : (i) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Sardar patel Vinay Mandir, Vasad with effect from 16/06/1971. Within short time from her appointment disputes and or differences have arisen between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner-Management. According to Management, the respondent No. 1-Teacher was suffering from actue sense of superiority complex and that she was highly cantankerous by nature and she was also not open or amenable to any discipline. She is not even ready to any correction whatsoever in teaching technique. At times, she behaves in a most undignified manner and uses languages which is highly insulting and derogatory. The chargesheet, dated 8/06/1979 was served on the respondent No. 1 levelling number of charges. The respondent No. 1 was called upon to submit her reply to the chargesheet. She filed written statement. The petitioner- management did not accept her explanation and appointed Enquiry Committee to hold regular enquiry into the charges levelled against her. The Enquiry committee submitted its report, dated 29/07/1979. The committee found that the chargesheet levelled against the respondent No. 1 were proved, and therefore, it recommended dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service. Based on said recommendations of the Enquiry Committee the petitioner- management served show cause notice on respondent No. 1-Teacher. The enquiry Committee thereafter came to conclusion on 21/08/1979 that none of the findings of guilt arrived at by it earlier deserve to be altered and recommended that the respondent No. 1 should be dismissed from service as provided by Regulation No. 27 (7) (g ). The said papers were, thereafter, sent to D. E. O.- respondent No. 2 herein along with letter, dated 22- 8-1979 for his approval to the proposed action of dismissing respondent No. 1 from service. (ii) The D. E. O. after hearing boy the parties came to conclusion that proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the respondent No. 1-Teacher by the Enquiry Committee. However, he held that the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 were not proved and that some of the charges were absolutely petty so as not to call for punishment of dismissal from service. He, therefore, refused approval to the Managements proposal for dismissing the respondent no. 1 from service. The Tribunal confirmed his decision.

( 3 ) MR. S. N. Shelat, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits that both the d. E. O. as well as the Tribunal have grossly erred while exercising powers under Sec. 36 (1) (b) of the said Act in refusing approval. The powers of D. E. O. under Sec. 36 (1) (b) for granting approval to the action proposed to be taken by the Management are akin to the powers of management under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of I. D. Act, and the jurisdiction of D. E. O. , is very limited. If due enquiry is held and charges are held proved against the employer after due c