First respondent is an educational institution coming within the purview of Chapter XIV (AA) of the Kerala Education Rules. It is a recognized private school but not an aided school. Petitioner was working as typist-cum-clerk in the first respondent school. By Ext.P2 order dated 13.2.2001 the Manager of the school placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into certain allegations of misconduct. On the very same day the Manager issued Ext.P3 memo of charges to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. Altogether there were eight charges. A perusal of the charges framed as per Ext.P3 would show that they were serious in nature. Petitioner submitted his explanation as per Ext.P4 dated 19.1.2001 denying the charges and giving reasons in defence of some of his conduct and actions which led to the issue of Ext.P3. He also put forward a case that the facts and circumstances were such that there was enough provocation from the side of the management and persons supporting the Manager, which led to the undesirable situations to happen.

2. The Manager, being not satisfied with the explanation submitted as per Ext.P4, ordered domestic enquiry. At this stage the petitioner made a request to permit him to have the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him in the domestic enquiry. That request was not allowed.

3. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. Witnesses in support of the charges were examined and their evidence was recorded. Though the petitioner was present at the venue of enquiry, he did not cross-examine the witnesses examined on the side of the management. He also did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report of enquiry to the management holding that all the charges except charge Nos.2 and 7 were proved.

4. Accepting the findings contained in the enquiry report, the Manager found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos:1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service giving effect to the order of dismissal from the date of suspension on 13.2.2001. The order thus passed by the management is Ext.P6 with the Original Petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this O.P. challenging Ext.P6 order.

5. The question for consideration is whether Ext.P6 is vitiated for any serious illegality causing prejudice to the petitioner. Counsel on both sides were heard on the point.

6. The provisions contained in Chapter XIV (AA) of K.E.R, unlike those contained in Chapter XIV A, do not lay down detailed procedure for conducting the disciplinary action against the members of the staff of the unaided school. Rule 3 of Chapter XIV AA guarantees protection against arbitrary and unfair termination of the services of the employees of unaided schools. The above rule mandates that the service of any member of the teaching or non-teaching staff shall not be terminated by the management without conducting a domestic enquiry and without giving the member an opportunity of being heard in that enquiry. Therefore, the legal requirement is a domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice thereby giving reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend the charges against him. The contention of the petitioner is that there is violation of the principles of natural justice, atleast, in as much as the first respondent did not serve a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner before Ext.P6 order of dismissal was passed. Copy of the enquiry report is Ext.P5 with the O.P.

7. There is no dispute that Ext.P5 was not served on the petitioner, giving him opportunity to have his say in regard to the findings contained therein, before the management had decided to accept the findings in that report and to dismiss the petitioner from service. The contention of the management is that copy of Ext.P5 was served on the petitioner along with Ext.P6 order of dismissal and that is sufficient compli