Judgment :- 1. This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 8-4-1959 summarily terminating the services of the petitioner as Principal of the Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur. The application prays for quashing certain anterior proceedings also. 2. The circumstances under which this application has been filed, could be gathered from the allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of this application. 3. It is stated that the respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board, is a statutory Body constituted and functioning under Travancore-Cochin Act XV of 1950. Sree Kerala Varma College, Trichur, is affiliated with the Kerala University and is under the management of the respondent Board and the petitioner is the Principal of that College. He had applied for quashing an order of suspension passed against him by the respondent Board on 4-12-1958 by filing an application in this Court, O. P. No. 839/1958. The petitioner relies upon the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of 0. P. No. 839/58, the several exhibits filed in that case and also the judgment of Mr. Justice Varadaraja Iyengar in the said O. P. It is further stated that after the order of Mr. Justice Varadaraja Iyengar dated 3-4-1959 quashing the order of the respondent Board dated 4-121958 suspending him, the petitioner applied to the respondent requesting them to reinstate him with back pay and other emoluments. According to the petitioner, the respondent, totally disregarding the intent and spirit of the order of the High Court, has sent him a notice dated 6-4-1959 directing him to substantiate some of the allegations made by him in the affidavit filed by him in O.P. 839/58 and also to explain his conduct in having had recourse to proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. That notice is Ex. P-4. The petitioner contends that the Board has no justification to call upon him to substantiate certain allegations made by him in an affidavit filed in the High Court. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent sent another order on the same date namely, Ext. P-5 asking him to submit his answers to a charge-sheet dated 19-12-1958 and fixing the date for his submission of explanation and answers as 15-4-1959. Following that, on 8-4-59 the respondent Board passed proceedings, M-1562/58, Ext. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent sent another order on the same date namely, Ext. P-5 asking him to submit his answers to a charge-sheet dated 19-12-1958 and fixing the date for his submission of explanation and answers as 15-4-1959. Following that, on 8-4-59 the respondent Board passed proceedings, M-1562/58, Ext. P-6, terminating summarily the services of the petitioner as Principal with effect from that date. The petitioner also refers to another communication of the respondent of the same date, Ext. P-7 sent to him by way of a reply to Ext. P-3. 5. According to the petitioner, Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-6 are invalid and unsustainable on the ground that the respondent Board, from beginning to end, was actuated by bias, prejudice and malice against the Petitioner and the Board was only attempting to terminate his services somehow or other having made up their mind to do so even as early as 1-10-1958. 6. According to the petitioner, the subject matter of the notice dated 29-10-1958, after his reply dated 12-11-1958 Exts. E and F in O. P. 839/58, must be treated as closed and the respondent Board had no jurisdiction to take any action upon their original notice dated 29-10-1958 without giving the petitioner fresh notice about the matter. In view of this, the petitioner contends that the respondent Board has acted without jurisdiction and has also disregarded all canons of natural justice and has pre judged the entire matter. According to the petitioner, there are vital differences in the versions between him and the Board, as to what took place at the time of his courtesy call on 1-10-58 and in view of this the Board, which is really in the position of an opposite party, was not at all competent to investigate the matter; nor have they jurisdiction to act in the manner that they did under R.18 (1) the service conditions. The order of this court dated 3-4-1959 in O.P. 839/58 was also stated to be a bar to the respondent taking any further action. It is also stated that the entire proceedings taken by the Board against the petitioner amount to a colourable exercise of authority even on the basis that an enquiry is permissible under the terms and conditions of service. It is also stated that the entire proceedings taken by the Board against the petitioner amount to a colourable exercise of authority even on the basis that an enquiry is permissible under the terms and conditions of service. The petitioner further states that there has been no fair and proper enquiry and therefore, no fair decision can be expected from the respondent Board. In these circumstances the order dated 8-4-1959 namely, Ext. P-6 terminating the services of the petitioner, and also certain other proceedings threatened to be started namely, under Exts. P-4 and P-5 are sought to be quashed. 7. The Secretary of the respondent Board has filed a counter-affidavit It is stated that the petitioner was the Principal only till his services were terminated by the Board. The allegations in Para.1, 2,4 and 5 in the petitioner's affidavit are admitted. It is further stated that as the Board intended to file an appeal and as they had not got the order in O. P. 839/58, the Board could not accede to the request of the petitioner to reinstate him. The interpretation put on the order of the High Court by the petitioner was also challenged. It is also stated that the Board has got jurisdiction and power to issue the notice, Ext. P-4 and it is further explained that the petitioner has not been called upon to answer for his having filed a writ petition in the High Court. 8. The allegations in Para.8 and 9 of the affidavit are accepted as correct. But the circumstances under which Exts. P-5 & P-6 were passed by the Board have not been correctly stated by the applicant. The impugned order, Ext. P-6, according to the respondent, was passed by the respondent, Board after going through the necessary formalities and after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct and to substantiate the statement and imputations. It is further stated that at the interview that took place between the Principal and the members of the Board on 1-10-1958 certain discussions took place which were recorded as a resolution at the next meeting of the Board on 8 -10-1958 and a copy of the proceedings was sent to the petitioner stating that the Board trusts that the petitioner would find the summary substantially correct. 9. 9. It is further alleged that the petitioner never mentioned to the members of the Board who visited the College on 9-10-1958 at the invitation of the Principal, that there were any mistakes in the communication sent by the Board. The petitioner sent on 23rd October, 1958 a letter giving his version of what took place on 1-10-1958 and be has denied the statement of the Board about the remark that "he was unfit to hold the Principal's Post". On receipt of this letter, the Board took action by sending a notice under R.18 (1) (a) of the Sree Kerala Varma College Service Rules and on the basis of that notice, the order Ext. P-6 was passed. The petitioner had filed his explanation on 12-11-1958 and the petitioner himself did not claim any opportunity to be given to him for personal hearing or for substantiating his statements. After carefully examining his explanation and the material available with the Board, the respondent passed the order, Ext. P-6. The view of the petitioner that "the matter has been apparently treated as closed" is not justified. The file was still pending and therefore, there can be no question of a fresh notice. 10. It is further stated that the petitioner did not care to defend himself and the respondent passed the order, Ex. P-6 without in any way taking into consideration any of the facts forming the basis of Ext. P-4 or Ext. P-5. The allegation of the Board being biassed against the petitioner is also disputed. 11. It is also alleged that there are no errors in the facts mentioned and and relied upon in Ext. P-6. The Board was convinced that the petitioner was deliberately speaking a lie with regard to the matter of which the members of the Board had personal knowledge and that was a sufficient ground for disqualifying him for holding the responsible post of Principal of one of the premier Educational institutions in the State. 12. It is also stated that action has been taken against the petitioner in exercise of the legitimate powers vested in the respondent Board and there has been in no way a colourable exercise of jurisdiction. The respondent Board further affirms that the enquiry under order Ext. 12. It is also stated that action has been taken against the petitioner in exercise of the legitimate powers vested in the respondent Board and there has been in no way a colourable exercise of jurisdiction. The respondent Board further affirms that the enquiry under order Ext. P-5 is a regular legitimate course which the Board is free to adopt and it further states that the charges framed therein are very serious to entitle them to call upon the petitioner to explain. The Service Rules give power and jurisdiction to the respondent Board and the petitioner also is bound by the Service Rules. It is further stated that the order under Ext. P-6 was passed on 1-4-1959 though issued to the petitioner later, that is, on 8-4-59. It is also stated that the enquiry against the petitioner and the resultant order Ext. P-6 cannot be canvassed before this Court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. These are all matters within the internal affairs of Statutory Body. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of these proceedings, it is open to him to choose other appropriate forums but in any event, he cannot get any redress under Art.226 of the Constitution. On these grounds, the respondent prays for the application being dismissed. 13. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating that the termination of his services by the Board is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. Even the observations made by the learned judge in O. P. 839/58 will show that the petitioner has sufficient grounds for apprehension that the actions of the Board are not fair and above board. It is stated that the undue haste with which several orders were passed by the board, is conclusive proof that the Board is incompetent to consider the matter fairly and impartially and to come to a just decision. 14. It is further alleged that the deponent of the counter-affidavit Shri K. Sankarankutty Marar becomes the Secretary of the Board only on 19-11-1958 and is therefore, not competent to depose as to what took place at the courtesy call on 1-10-1958. 14. It is further alleged that the deponent of the counter-affidavit Shri K. Sankarankutty Marar becomes the Secretary of the Board only on 19-11-1958 and is therefore, not competent to depose as to what took place at the courtesy call on 1-10-1958. The petitioner further states that he did not mention to the members of the Board about the mistakes contained in the letter of the Board, because the members visited the college on his invitation and as an honoured guest and as such, he felt that such an occasion should not be used to ventilate his grievances. But he points out that the respondent has admitted in the notice dated 29-10-1958, Ext. E, in O. P. No. 839/58, that when the President of the Board visited the college on 16-10-1958, the petitioner has brought this mistake to the notice of the President and that his letter and statements dated 23-10-1958 are only in continuation of this earlier representation to the President. The assumption by the Board that its version is correct, when he is denying it, will not amount to proof of what took place on 1-10-1958. No member of the Board has chosen so far to file an affidavit either in the present proceedings or in the previous O. P. 839/58 challenging his statements. He states that the version given by him about the interview in his letter dated 23101958 is correct. 15. He further states that he was perfectly justified in treating the charge covered by the notice dated 29-10-1958 as having been abandoned by the Board, by reason of the subsequent conduct namely, issuing of suspension order and also issuing charge-sheet dated 19-12-1958 and also further issuing two notices namely, Exts. P-4 and P-5 on 6-4-1959. It is again stated that if the Board, after all these proceedings, wanted to fall back on the notice of 29-10-1958, as they have now done, the Board should have in justice, given the petitioner a fresh notice and the omission to issue such a notice is opposed to natural justice. The petitioner also relies upon all the other proceedings to show that the action of the Board is actuated by malafides and bias. The very wording of the order Ext. P-6 will show that the Board was thoroughly biassed as against the petitioner. 16. The petitioner further states that the original order of termination Ext. The petitioner also relies upon all the other proceedings to show that the action of the Board is actuated by malafides and bias. The very wording of the order Ext. P-6 will show that the Board was thoroughly biassed as against the petitioner. 16. The petitioner further states that the original order of termination Ext. P-6, served on him bears the date 8-4-1959 and he disputes the statement in the counter-affidavit that the order was passed on 1-4-1959. He also states that if really the Board had terminated his services on 1-4-1959 as alleged, they would not have issued the subsequent notices, Exts. P-4 and P-5. The hearing of 0. P. 839/58 was on 24-3-1959 and during the hearing, one of the members of the Board and its Secretary were present and they knew full well everything that happened in court. The judgment in O. P. 839 of 1958 was delivered on 3-4-1959. Even on the basis that the order was passed on 1-4-1959, as now alleged, it will clearly show that the respondent Board was making only another deliberate attempt to terminate his services, knowing full well that the order of suspension passed by that Board was going to be quashed in O. P. 839/58. This again will show that the order Ext. P-6 is absolutely malafide and the Board is only trying to rake up matters which are already closed. 17. The petitioner further contends that this court has got jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings of the Respondent Board which is a Statutory Body created and functioning under a Statute. 18. It will be desirable to mention here the various orders passed by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed in support of this application his affidavit filed in support of O. P. 839/58 and also the various orders and correspondence referred to in that affidavit. The petitioner's affidavit in O. P. 839/58 is Ext. P-1 and the various correspondences and orders referred to therein as enclosures are Exts. A to H and they will have the same reference here also. Apart from that he has also filed Exts. P-2 to P-8. Ext. P-2 is the order of Mr. Justice Varadaraja Iyengar dated 3rd April 1959 in O. P. 839/58. The other exhibits will be referred to at the appropriate place. The respondent has also filed Ext. A to H and they will have the same reference here also. Apart from that he has also filed Exts. P-2 to P-8. Ext. P-2 is the order of Mr. Justice Varadaraja Iyengar dated 3rd April 1959 in O. P. 839/58. The other exhibits will be referred to at the appropriate place. The respondent has also filed Ext. R-1 to R-5 which correspond to some of the Exhibits filed on the side of the petitioner. By consent, the above exhibits have been treated as the evidence on record in this O.P. Ext. A is an order dated 8-10-1958 of the respondent Board communicating to the petitioner a copy of the Board's resolution summarising what took place at the meeting between the petitioner and the Board on 1-10-1958. There is no controversy that after the new Board took charge, the Principal-petitioner made an appointment with the members of the Board for making a courtesy call on them and the interview was fixed to 1-10-1958. It is also seen from the enclosure letter Exhibit B, that after the courtesy function was over, the members of the Board discussed two problems with the Principal. Though the petitioner was not prepared for that surprise discussion at that time, yet as a subordinate of the Board, he had no other alternative but to agree to the discussion started by the Board, notwithstanding the fact that it was a courtesy visit by him. Ext. B shows that the matters that were discussed related to the retrenchment of one Sri Narayanan Nambudiripad who was a lecturer in Malayalam and the other related to one Srimathi Sathi M. Varier. The Board appears to have appointed straightaway on the spot Sri Narayanan Nambudiripad to the staff of the college. Regarding the other problem, namely, that of Sathi M. Varier, Ext. B shows that the Principal the petitioner, agreed to the course suggested by the Board. Ext. B finally concludes: "Finally, we told him frankly that he was unfit to hold the Principal's post responsibility," It will be remembered that the covering letter, Ext. A in which the enclosure, Ext. B was sent had stated that "The Board trusts the Principal will find the summary substantially correct," 19. On receipt of the communications, Exts. A and B the petitioner sent a reply On 23-10-1958, Ext. C enclosing therewith also his version at to what happened at the interview on 1-10-1958. A in which the enclosure, Ext. B was sent had stated that "The Board trusts the Principal will find the summary substantially correct," 19. On receipt of the communications, Exts. A and B the petitioner sent a reply On 23-10-1958, Ext. C enclosing therewith also his version at to what happened at the interview on 1-10-1958. This enclosure is Ext. D. In Ext. C. the petitioner stated that he is forwarding a full and true account of what transpired at the meeting on 1-10-1958. In the second paragraph, he has stated that there are differences between the versions contained in the resolution sent to him namely, Ext. B and the one that he was forwarding. Then he pointed out that one of the most important point was the one that related to the matter contained in the last paragraph of Ext. B. Regarding that, he stated that, "I declare in the name of Truth that at no stage of the talk was anything mentioned, frankly or in any other way about my fitness to hold the post I do." Then he states that the charge made in the resolution is a grave and serious one. He also paints out that there was a Board functioning even previously & if the Board and the Principal differ in their views, it is open to the Board to ask for implementation of their views. He further stated that he had done nothing to evoke or deserve an allegation of unfitness. He winds up Ext. C by stating that the Board has thought fit to make the allegation of unfitness about him and requested the Board that the relevant portion relating thereto may be expunged from the resolution. Ext. D gives his version of what took place on 1-10-1958. Shortly, he says that he fixed up an appointment for paying courtesy call on the members of the Board on 1-10-1958. After he had so come and paid his respects, the President of the Board switched on to the retrenchment of staff. In the subsequent portions of Ext. D he gives his version as to what happened during the further stage of the interview. Ext. After he had so come and paid his respects, the President of the Board switched on to the retrenchment of staff. In the subsequent portions of Ext. D he gives his version as to what happened during the further stage of the interview. Ext. D finally winds up by saying that he invited the members of the Board to pay a visit to the college and they also agreed to visit the college at 3 P. M. on 9-10-1958 and the petitioner took leave of them saying that he would arrange a party in honour of their visit. 20. On receipt of this reply from the petitioner, the respondent Board sent a letter, Ext. E dated 29-10-1958. Prom Ext. E it is seen that the Board felt that the Principal was contradicting the matters contained in the resolution of the Board and insinuating that the Board was uttering a lie as to what happened on 1-10-1958. In this letter, the Board states that the Board told the petitioner frankly on 1-10-1958 that he was unfit to hold the Principal's post and that a council is to be set up to consider matters that come before the Principal. It is also stated that on 18th October 1958, when the President visited the College, the Principal used that occasion for denying that the Board-declared him unfit on 1-10-1958. The letter takes the Principal to task for making insinuation against the Board in his letters, Exts. C and D. It is further stated in the said letter that the Board reported the petitioner's statement and imputations contained in Exts. D and E. It charges the petitioner that he, as a servant of the Board, has committed very serious misconduct in making such a statement and imputations. C and D. It is further stated in the said letter that the Board reported the petitioner's statement and imputations contained in Exts. D and E. It charges the petitioner that he, as a servant of the Board, has committed very serious misconduct in making such a statement and imputations. Finally, the letter states: "This is to give you notice that the Board intends to terminate your services under the Board underrate 18(1) (a) of conditions of service of teachers of Sree Kerala Varma College, on the grounds above stated and to inform you that you can state your case in writing and that the Board is prepared to hear you in person if you so desire and to give you every reasonable opportunity to substantiate your statement and the imputations in it against the members of the Board." The Board also stated that it has fixed 12-11-1958 for filing statement of the petitioner's case and also further stated that the date for personal hearing will be fixed on 12-11-1958. Ext. E winds up by saying: "The Board will take a final decision on your statement and your imputations contained in that statement after taking into consideration your statement in writing of your case and your oral representations at the personal hearing." 21. Within the time mentioned in Ext. E the petitioner sent up a letter dated 12-11-1958, Ext. F, containing his reply to the matters mentioned in Ext. E. He stated that he was not actuated by any motive in making any imputations against the members of the Board. He only used the capital letter 'T' for truth and frankly in quotation marks, because the letter of the Board caused him profound mental distress. He has also stated that the Board may be pleased to accept his sincere assurance that he never intended any sort of disrespect or accusation against the Board and he says that he had never given any cause to be charged for any misconduct. Finally, he stated that he does not wish to have a personal hearing and requested the Board to consider his explanation and assurance in the proper perspective. This letter, Ext. F is dated 12-11-1958. Nothing has happened on the basis of Ext. E, the show cause notice followed by the reply, Ext. F, till we come to 8-4-1959, when the Board passed the order, Ext. This letter, Ext. F is dated 12-11-1958. Nothing has happened on the basis of Ext. E, the show cause notice followed by the reply, Ext. F, till we come to 8-4-1959, when the Board passed the order, Ext. P-6 terminating summarily the services of the petitioner. 22. In between 12-11-1958 and 8-4-1959 certain other events happened. On 4-12-1958, the Board issued an order, Ext. G, to the petitioner stating that in view of certain disclosures in the Devaswom Commissioner's report about the purchase of books for the library, the Board considered it undesirable to allow the Principal, the petitioner, to continue in his post, pending action on that matter and therefore, by the same order, the Board forthwith suspended the petitioner from his office asking him to hand over charge immediately to the Professor of Commerce. Ext. G was followed up, on the same day, by another letter Ext. H by the respondent Board, asking the Principal to hand over charge to the Head Clerk. It may be mentioned that it is this order of suspension, as evidenced by Ext. G, that was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. 839/58. The said O.P. was heard by Mr. Justice N. Varadaraja Iyengar on 24-3-1959 and by order dated 3-4-1959, the learned judge quashed the order evidenced by Ext. G. Subsequently, after the disposal of 0. P. 839/58, the petitioner wrote Ext. P-3 on 6-4-1959 to the respondent requesting the Board to comply with the order of the High Court. On the same day, the Board issued the order, Ext. P-4, extracting certain allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit in O. P. 839/58 and calling upon him to substantiate the allegations and to explain his conduct. The Board fixed 15-4-1959 for submission of explanation and also intimated the petitioner that the enquiry will begin on 18-4-1959. There was another order of the same date Ext. P-5 stating that the Board refixes 16-4-1959 as the date for filing his statement regarding the proceeding started against him by the Board by its order dated 19-12-1958 namely, M. 1919/58. Ext. P-5 also states that the enquiry on the charges will begin on 18-4-1959. Finally, the order, Ext. P-6, is passed, terminating summarily, the services of the petitioner, under R.18 (1) (a) of the conditions of service with effect from the date of that order namely, 8-4-1959. It is stated in Ext. Ext. P-5 also states that the enquiry on the charges will begin on 18-4-1959. Finally, the order, Ext. P-6, is passed, terminating summarily, the services of the petitioner, under R.18 (1) (a) of the conditions of service with effect from the date of that order namely, 8-4-1959. It is stated in Ext. P-6 that there was a meeting of the Board on 1st October 1958 and that the Board discussed two matters with the petitioner Principal namely, the retrenchment of Shri A. V. Narayanan Nambudiripad, and the claim of Sathi M. Varrier to have her appointment as Lecturer given effect to from 17-6-1957. The order further states that there was a short summary recorded of what took place and that the last paragraph of the summary was to the effect that "Finally we told him that he was unfit to hold the Principal's post responsibility". A copy of the resolution was sent to the Principal and the Principal has by his letter dated 23rd October, 1958, given a different version of what took place and he has also denied that the Board ever made any remark about his being unfit. 23. The order further states that the said statement of the petitioner was false and it involves serious imputations against the Board and suggested that the Board was telling a lie. These constitute misconduct and therefore, a notice was issued under R.18 (1) (a) to the Principal intimating the intention of the Board to terminate his services for misconduct and also gave him an opportunity for stating his case in writing and also agreeing to give him a personal hearing. The petitioner filed a statement, but declined the other offers. 24. It is further stated in Ext. P-6 that the petitioner has stated in his letter dated 23rd October, 1958 that he was not actuated by any motive of making any imputations against the members of the Board. 25. This according to the Board, is an admission that the imputations were implicit in the statement. Then the order further states that the question in the enquiry was as to whether, at the meeting on the 1st October, 1958, the respondent Board did not pass any remark about his fitness for the Principal's post. 25. This according to the Board, is an admission that the imputations were implicit in the statement. Then the order further states that the question in the enquiry was as to whether, at the meeting on the 1st October, 1958, the respondent Board did not pass any remark about his fitness for the Principal's post. The order further proceeds to say that the meeting of 1st October, 1958 was an official meeting when the Secretary and a Professor who was the Head of the Malayalam department, were also present apart from the members of the Board. The remark about the fitness of the petitioner was the expression of an impression formed by the members of the Board. It further states that a copy of the resolution was served on the petitioner on 8th October, 1958, and though the Board visited the college at his request on 9-10-1958, he did not mention about any mistake in the resolution sent to him. The denial by the petitioner according to the Board, was "in the nature of an assault on the Board, deliberately planned over weeks". There are certain other statements made, which, in my opinion, one does not expect of a Statutory Body functioning under a Statute. Finally, the order states that the charges were very grave. Though the petitioner has every right to protest it was futile for him to deny. The order further says: "He is a votary of direct action" and reference is made to some portions of his affidavit in O.P. 839/58. The order further says that the statement and imputations in the letter of the petitioner dated 23rd October, 1958 are false and that the Board has therefore, come to the conclusion that his services under the Board must be altogether terminated in accordance with the provisions of R.18 (1) (a) of the conditions of service. Accordingly, the order wound up by saying that the services of the petitioner-Principal are summarily terminated with effect from that date. 26. This order dated 8-4-1959 Ext. P-6 is very severely attacked by Mr.T.N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that it is absolutely malafide and is one passed without jurisdiction and that it is also opposed to all principles of natural justice. 26. This order dated 8-4-1959 Ext. P-6 is very severely attacked by Mr.T.N. Subramonia Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that it is absolutely malafide and is one passed without jurisdiction and that it is also opposed to all principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also contended that even on the first day namely, 1-10-1958, when the Principal made a courtesy visit to pay his respects to the members of the respondent Board, the latter had made up its mind to send him out at all costs. The various proceedings evidenced by the several exhibits filed in this case, conclusively show that the members of the Board have been biassed against the petitioner from the very beginning and as such, they have become incapable of considering the matter fairly and honestly. 27. The learned counsel further contended that even on their own case, there was a conflict between the petitioner-Principal and the respondent Board as to what happened on the date of the interview namely, 1-10-1958. The Board itself which is giving an entirely different version, is really in the position of an opposite party and as such, incapable of judging the truth or otherwise of the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent Board. The learned counsel has also contended that a reading of the order, Ext. P-6 itself will show the bitterness and the hatred that the respondent Board entertains as against the petitioner. 28. Mr. T. N. Subramonia Iyer also contended by a reference to the various dates', that the Board had abandoned taking any action on the basis of Ext. E as early as 12-11-1958 when the petitioner sent in his explanation, Ext. F. If really the proceeding for terminating his services started by Exhibit E was pending, the order suspending him on 4-12-1958 under Ext. G would not have been passed. He also submitted that if really Ext. E was still kept pending, the respondent Board would not have sent Ext. P-4 on 6-4-1959 framing certain charges against the petitioner and asking him to explain. Again it would not have passed the order, Ext, P-5 on 6 4-1959 giving him time regarding the charges levelled against him by proceedings dated 19-12-1958. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the proceedings started by Ext. E had become closed when the petitioner sent in his explanation on 12-11-58 under Ext. Again it would not have passed the order, Ext, P-5 on 6 4-1959 giving him time regarding the charges levelled against him by proceedings dated 19-12-1958. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the proceedings started by Ext. E had become closed when the petitioner sent in his explanation on 12-11-58 under Ext. F and therefore the order, Ext. P-6 passed on 8-4-1959 purporting to be based on the proceedings which have already been closed is without jurisdiction. 29. Mr. T.N. Subramonia Iyer also relied upon the observations of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in 6. Nageswara Rao v. A. P. S. R. T. Corporation (A.I.R.1959 S.C.308) to the effect that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, there is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the authority empowered to decide the dispute between opposing parties must be one without bias towards one side or other in the dispute and that it is on the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. 30. On the other hand, Mr. Sankara Menon, learned counsel for the respondent Board, contended that proceedings by way of seeking relief under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be availed of by the petitioner. The services of the petitioner with the Board are contractual and the Board has taken action by virtue of the powers vested in it under the rules namely, conditions of service of teachers. He also contended that there was absolutely nothing on record to show that the members of the Board acted malafide or they are biassed against the petitioner. They have only taken action which they are entitled to under the rules. If the petitioner feels that any action of the Board is illegal or otherwise not lawful, it is open to him to challenge them in appropriate legal proceedings. There is a controversy as to what happened at the time of the interview on 1-10-1958 and that cannot be considered in an application for issue of a writ. The learned counsel also referred me to certain decisions to the effect that when power is given by the terms of a contract to terminate the services of anybody, the motive behind the exercise of power has no bearing on the legality or validity of the order. 31. In my opinion, the decisions relied upon by Mr. The learned counsel also referred me to certain decisions to the effect that when power is given by the terms of a contract to terminate the services of anybody, the motive behind the exercise of power has no bearing on the legality or validity of the order. 31. In my opinion, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sankara Menon in Bhusan Saran v. Onkar Singh (A. I. R.1956 All. 715), K. V. Seshavatram v. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R.1959 Andra Pradesh 251) and Shrinivas v. Union of India (A.I.R.1956 Born. 455) have no bearing on the point in issue. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this court of M. S. Menon and Raman Nayar, JJ. reported in Vasudevan V. S. N. D. P. Yogam (1958 K. L T. 48). In my opinion, the said decision is rather against the contention of Mr. Sankara Menon that no writ can issue at all in this case. In the case before the learned judges, the dispute related to the President of the Branch Office of S. N. D. P. Yogam, a body incorporated under Travancore Regulation.1/1063. Though no doubt, the learned judges observed that the matter in dispute then should be more properly decided in the ordinary courts instead of by the High Court under its special jurisdiction conferred by Art.226 of the Constitution, the learned judges did not accept the contention of the respondent therein, the S. N. D. P. Yogam, that in no circumstances can a writ be issued at all, as will be seen from the observations contained at page 49: "We do not go to the extent of accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Yogam being a private body, and the proceedings of its Board, the proceedings of a domestic tribunal, we have no jurisdiction to interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution. We are quite prepared to dismiss the petition on the preliminary ground that this is not a fit case for the exercise of that jurisdiction. 32. The observations, of the learned judges will clearly show that this court has ample jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Statutory Bodies like the respondent Board created and functioning under a Statute. We are quite prepared to dismiss the petition on the preliminary ground that this is not a fit case for the exercise of that jurisdiction. 32. The observations, of the learned judges will clearly show that this court has ample jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Statutory Bodies like the respondent Board created and functioning under a Statute. The learned counsel placed considerable reliance on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Ramanath Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (1959 I Labour Law Journal 618). That related to an order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act 1897. According to the learned counsel, this decision lays down that simply because certain bodies are functioning under statute, Art.226 cannot be invoked. I need not express my opinion regarding that decision for the purpose of this case. The wide observations expressed by Mr. Justice Krishnan who delivered the leading judgment in that case, have not been accepted even by the other learned judge who formed a member of that Bench. Mr. Justice Khan, the other learned judge merely agrees with the conclusions of Mr. Justice Krishnan on the merits of the case and declined to interfere under Art.226 on the ground that it is not a fit case. When even another learned judge sitting with Mr. Justice Krishnan was not prepared to agree with the views expressed by the latter, I do not propose, with great respect, to consider that as an authority for the position taken up by Mr. Sankara Menon. 33. Mr. Sankara Menon also contended that the proceedings started by Ext. E on 29101958 have not been treated by the Board as closed after the receipt of the explanation dated 12-11-1958 from the Principal. Ext. F. It has been kept pending and ultimately, the order Ext. P-6 was passed on 8-4-1959. At this stage, I may mention that I am not inclined to go into the merits or otherwise of the two orders Exts. P-4 & P-5 which are also sought to be quashed in this petition. Exts. P-4 and P-5 relate to totally different matters and they have nothing to do with the matters connected with Ext. P-6. Therefore as such I decline to express any opinion on the contentions raised by both sides regarding the orders, Exts. P-4 and P-5. 34. P-4 & P-5 which are also sought to be quashed in this petition. Exts. P-4 and P-5 relate to totally different matters and they have nothing to do with the matters connected with Ext. P-6. Therefore as such I decline to express any opinion on the contentions raised by both sides regarding the orders, Exts. P-4 and P-5. 34. Though there is considerable force in the various attacks made against the order, Ext. P-6 by Mr. P.N. Subramonia Iyer, in my opinion the order, Ext. P-6 can be quashed on a very short ground. 35. It will be seen that even in the present affidavit in Para.10 it is stated that after the petitioner sent his explanation, Ext. F, the proceedings started by Ext. E have been apparently treated as closed. No doubt, in the counter-affidavit of the Board it is stated in Para.7 that there is no justification for the petitioner assuming that the matter has been treated as closed. It is" further stated that the file was still pending before the Board. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is further reiterated in Para.6, that the petitioner was perfectly justified in treating the charge covered by the notice, Ext. E as having been abandoned by the Board by reason of the subsequent conduct in issuing the orders, Exts. G, P-4 and P-5. If really the Board was keeping alive the proceedings started under Ext. E, there would not have been certainly any necessity for the Board to take action, as they took under Exts. G, P-4 and P-5. The orders evidenced by Exts. G, P-4 and P-5 are only consistent with the view that the Board must have been satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner under Ext. F on 12-11-1958 and that they have treated the matter as closed. 36. Under R.18 (1) (a), the management has got the power to terminate the services of a teacher without notice for wilful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, gross insubordination and mental unfitness. Under S.18 (1) (b), the management has got the power to terminate the service with 3 months' notice, or 3 months' salary in lieu of notice on the ground of incompetence, retrenchment, physical unfitness or any other good cause. Under S.18 (1) (b), the management has got the power to terminate the service with 3 months' notice, or 3 months' salary in lieu of notice on the ground of incompetence, retrenchment, physical unfitness or any other good cause. The proviso to R.18 states that the management shall not terminate the service of any teacher whether summarily or otherwise, without informing him in writing of the grounds on which they intend to take action and giving him what in their view, is a reasonable opportunity for stating his casein writing and before coming to a final decision, the management shall duly consider his statement and if he so desires, give him a personal hearing. Therefore, under proviso (a) to R.18, the management was bound to inform the petitioner in writing of the grounds on which they intend to take action and also comply with the other requirements therein. 37. It is, no doubt, true that in this case, they gave notice Ext. E on 29-10-1958. In response to that the petitioner gave his explanation, Ext. F on 12-11-1958. 38. It is stated in Para.8 of the reply affidavit in the present O. P. what the hearing of O. P. 839/58 was on 24-3-59 and that one of the members of the respondent Board and its Secretary were present in court at the time of hearing and they knew full well all that transpired in court. This statement has not been challenged by Mr. Sankara Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent Board. This assumes some importance, in view of the statement that has been recorded in the judgment of the High Court in O. P. 839/58. The O. P. was heard on 24-3-1959 and judgment was delivered on 3rd April 1959 and one of the members of the Board and its Secretary were present, according to the petitioner, and following the proceedings. In dealing with the contentions of the respondent Board the learned judge, in Para.5 of the judgment in the said O. P. observes as follows: - "It is conceded that the enquiry about Ext. E notice was already closed apparently by virtue of Ext. F, reply dated 14-11-1958" Evidently the date given for Ext. F is a mistake. Ext. E therein is the order dated 29-10-1958 asking the petitioner to show cause why the services should not be terminated. Ext. E notice was already closed apparently by virtue of Ext. F, reply dated 14-11-1958" Evidently the date given for Ext. F is a mistake. Ext. E therein is the order dated 29-10-1958 asking the petitioner to show cause why the services should not be terminated. Ext. F was the reply dated 12-11-58 sent by the petitioner. It is in respect of these two matters that concession has been made before the learned judge, on behalf of the respondent Board, that the enquiry intended as per notice Ext. E was closed by virtue of the explanation Ext. F sent by the petitioner on 12-11-1958. In view of this positive statement made before the court by the respondent Board, in my opinion, it has no jurisdiction to pass the order Ext. P-6 dated 8-4-1959 for which the proceedings Exts. E and F are said to be the basis. Once they have closed the matter as early as 12-11-1958 after the receipt of Ext. F, and this concession having been recorded by the learned judge, the respondent Board had no jurisdiction to pass any further orders based upon the proceedings originally intended to be taken but closed long ago. Notice to show cause originally given and closed with an explanation from the petitioner cannot be a compliance with the proviso (a) to R.18 (1) of the conditions of service of teachers. There is nothing on record to show that after closing the proceedings connected with the original notice, Ext. E. any further or fresh notice of any proposed or intended action was given before passing the order, Ext. P-6. I may also note one other contention of Mr. Sankara Menon namely, that Ext. P-6 was really passed on 1-4-1959 and issued to the petitioner on 8-4-1959 and in support of this, the respondent has produced the original order as Ext. P-5. This is again controverted by the petitioner to the effect that the original order received by him bears the date 8-4-1959 and he has filed the same as Ext. P-8. I have already mentioned that the statement in the reply affidavit that one of the members of the Board and the Secretary were present in court on 24-3-1959 has not been controverted at all and if so, they have been fully aware of the concession made before court. P-8. I have already mentioned that the statement in the reply affidavit that one of the members of the Board and the Secretary were present in court on 24-3-1959 has not been controverted at all and if so, they have been fully aware of the concession made before court. Though the judgment itself, referring to the concession is delivered only on 3-4-1959, still it will not give any jurisdiction to the respondent Board to pass the order, Ext. P-6 even on 1-4-1959 assuming that it is the date on which they passed the order, Ext. P-6. On the short ground mentioned above, in my view, the order Ext. P-6 is one passed without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the proviso (a) to R.18(1) of the rules of service. 39. In the result, the order No. 1632/58 dated 8-4-1959 of the respondent Board, marked Ext. P-6 in this O. P. is quashed and this O. P. is ordered to that extent. 40. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner fixed in the sum of Rs. 250. Allowed.