A minority institution receiving aid from the Government is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court and the principles of natural justice must be followed in conducting disciplinary proceedings against its employees.

1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 27. 1995 dismissing the petitioner from service, he has filed the present writ petition for quashing the same and consequential direction for re-instatement with all backwages and other benefits.

.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:-

Since the first respondent school being a minority institution, the provisions relating to approval, appeal and other provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are not applicable as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 24. 1976, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the entire charges from charge No. 1 to 10 which is found in the impugned order of dismissal would reveal that they are for the alleged complaint against the wrong administration of the first respondent school which is said to have been sent by one V. Palanisamy, who is nothing to do with the petitioner herein. The impugned order of dismissal is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the first respondent who had given the charge had himself become the disciplinary authority and enquiry authority. Further the first respondent have violated the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence. The series of replies and demand from the petitioner from 15. 1993 to 7. 1995 would reveal that the entire enquiry was conducted in a manner totally disregard of principles of natural justice with the sole purpose of vindictive motive against the petitioner and five other teachers. In those circumstance, he has approached this Court for the necessary relief as stated above.

.3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is contended that the present writ petition against the first respondent is not maintainable, since the first respondent school is not a Government school and is not governed by any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973. In other words, according to the first respondent it is not state or Agency of a State as defined under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent School is declared as religious minority institution. Further in the counter affidavit the first respondent has elaborated various charges made against the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioners was not given proper opportunity is denied by the first respondent. There is no basis for the allegation that the enquiry was conducted without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also contended that the impugned order is fair, legal, reasonable and proper and hence this court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any counter affidavit.

5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T. Martin, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following submissions:

.(i) In as much as the first respondent is a minority institution the provisions viz., approval, appeal and revision mentioned in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are not applicable, this Court has ample jurisdiction to go into the order of the first respondent.

.(ii) The impugned order of dismissal passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained, since notice for enquiry charge memo, enquiry report and the ultimate order of dismissal were passed by the Manager and Correspondent of the first respondent school.

7. In support of the above submissions he has reli