JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, A.C.J. - This special appeal by Rajeshwar Prasad Dixit (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is directed against the judgment of Satish Chandra, J. dated 23-2-68 by which he dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3120 of 1967 filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant was the Principal of Dr. Hari Ram Arya Inter, College, Mayapur, Haradwar (hereinafter referred to as the College). He was put under suspension by means of a resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the College (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) on 12th March, I965. The Committee appointed Professor Ram Singh, the President of the Society which owns the College, to make an informal investigation into the allegations against the appellant and to submit a report on 22-6-1965. The Committee considered certain charges against the appellant. This was followed by a chargesheet which was served on the appellant on 9th July, 1965 along with the accompanying letter dated 7th July, 1965. The appellant was informed of the evidence that was to be produced against him. On receipt of the charge-sheet the appellant replied on 12th July, 1965 that in as much as the accompanying letter dated 7th July, 1965 disclosed that another charge-sheet may follow on conclusion of the scrutiny of accounts, he (the appellant) was not in a position to reply to the charges. After giving another opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation with regard to the charge-sheet served upon him the Committee dismissed him from service on 11th February, 1966. The District Inspector of Schools, however, did not accord his approval to the dismissal order. On 1st June, 1966 the Committee resolved to serve a fresh charge-sheet on the appellant, and this was done on 11 the June, 1966. The appellant was called upon to submit his explanation within the time mentioned in the charge-sheet. The appellant did not submit any explanation but pleaded that, inasmuch as the matter had been referred to arbitration under the terms of agreement of service, it was not necessary for him to submit his reply. On 27th July, 1966 the Committee passed a resolution dismissing appellant, and on 21st November, the District Inspector of Schools accorded his approval. On 5th December, 1966 the appellant was served with the order of dismissal. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. On 27th July, 1966 the Committee passed a resolution dismissing appellant, and on 21st November, the District Inspector of Schools accorded his approval. On 5th December, 1966 the appellant was served with the order of dismissal. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. Meerut Region inter alia on the ground that no inquiry as contemplated by Regulation 35 having been held, the entire proceedings were ,vitiated and void, and that the appellant did not have a reasonable opportunity of showing cause or submitting an explanation. The Deputy Director allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal order passed against the appellant. Thereupon the Committee filed the writ petition giving rise to this Special appeal. 3. Satish Chandra, J. was of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Education was not correct and he had Committed errors which required the quashing of his order by means of a writ of certiorari. He, therefore, granted it. 4. We have heard Sri Raja Ram Agrawal for the appellant and Sri K. P. Agrawal for the respondents. Sri Raja Ram has submitted that the view taken by Satish Chandra, J. in respect of the interpretation and the scope of Regulation 35 is not correct, and further that his view that the appellant did have a reasonable opportunity of showing cause is also erroneous. No other submission has been made before us. Satish Chandra, J. was of the opinion that Regulation 35 was directory and not mandatory, and that its non-observance was not fatal to the order of dismissal passed against the appellant. He opined that it was open to the Committee to appoint an inquiry committee as contemplated by Regulation No. 35, or to conduct the inquiry itself. Regulation No. 35 is contained in Chapter III of Regulation and falls under the heading "Punishment, inquiry and suspension". In order to appreciate to the scope and nature of this provision it is necessary to reproduce not only that Regulation but also Regulations Nos. 36 and 37. These Regulation read thus :- "35. Regulation No. 35 is contained in Chapter III of Regulation and falls under the heading "Punishment, inquiry and suspension". In order to appreciate to the scope and nature of this provision it is necessary to reproduce not only that Regulation but also Regulations Nos. 36 and 37. These Regulation read thus :- "35. On receipt of a complaint or an adverse report of facts of a serious nature, the Committee may in the cases of teachers appoint the Headmaster or Principal or Manager as the inquiry officer (or the Manager may himself set up the inquiry if such power has been delegated to him by the Committee under rules) and in the case of the Headmaster or Principal, a small subcommittee, with instructions to submit the report as expeditiously as possible." "36 (1) : The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required within three weeks of the receipt of the charge-sheet to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired to be heard in person. If he or the inquiring authority so desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring authority considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person, and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. The inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from these proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. (2) Clause (1) shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. The inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from these proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. (2) Clause (1) shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. (3): All or any of the provisions of clause (1) may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements thereof and those requirements can, in the opinion of the inquiring authority be waived without injustice to the person charged." "37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation from the inuring authority are received, the Committee of Management shall, after notice to employee, meet to consider the report of the proceedings and recommendation made and take decision on the case employee shall be allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in person to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The Committee shall then send and complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it." 5. It is clear from the regulations in fact it has been admitted at the Bar - that there is no Regulation or any other provision which deals with or provides for an inquiry by the Committee. As Regulation No. 37 would show, the Committee only receives the report of the proceedings and recommendation of the inquiring authority. Thereafter it can allow the employee, if he so desires, to appear before it in person and state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. Thereafter the Committee has to send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or the Regional Inspectress as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it. 6. The Regulations have been framed with a view to stop capricious dismissal of employees by a Committee (Management) . Detailed provisions have been framed to secure to the employee a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. It is for this reason that charges have to be framed and evidence recorded. 6. The Regulations have been framed with a view to stop capricious dismissal of employees by a Committee (Management) . Detailed provisions have been framed to secure to the employee a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. It is for this reason that charges have to be framed and evidence recorded. The scheme of the Regulations is that first an inquiring officer or sub- committee (which may be Headmaster or Principal or Manager in the case of an ordinary teacher, and a small sub-committee in the case of a Headmaster or Principal) is to be appointed to make an inquiry. Regulation No. 36 deals with the procedure that is to be followed by the inquiry officer or the sub-committee appointed under Regulation No. 35. The procedure provided in Regulation No. 36 is of the same nature as provided in Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It requires the serving of a charge-sheet upon the employee charged, the furnishing of an opportunity to him to make an explanation, and setting up of an oral inquiry in case the charged employee demands it or the inquiring authority considers it desirable. The charged employee has been given the right to cross-examine witnesses produced by the Management, to himself appear as a witness, and to produce evidence in defence. The inquiry officer or the sub-committee, as the case may be, is required to maintain a record of evidence and statements, and to record findings along with the grounds on which the findings are based. The inquiring authority is required thereafter to submit its report along with recommendations to the Committee. These Regulations read carefully lead one to the conclusion that a Committee (Management Committee) is not the inquiry office or the sub-committee, and that the function of making the inquiry has, by the Regulations, been assigned to the sub-committee and the inquiry officer and not to the Committee (Committee of Management) . It may be that the Committee is the appointing authority. It may also be that the Committee is the punishing authority. But in its wisdom the rule-making authority choose to entrust the inquiry not to the Committee but to a sub-committee or to an inquiry officer. 7. It is not necessary to seek reasons as to why this has been done because the provisions seem to us to be clear. It may also be that the Committee is the punishing authority. But in its wisdom the rule-making authority choose to entrust the inquiry not to the Committee but to a sub-committee or to an inquiry officer. 7. It is not necessary to seek reasons as to why this has been done because the provisions seem to us to be clear. In any case if reasons were to be surmised, it is obvious that one must have been that it was thought as a rule of public policy that the inquiring authority should be different from the punishing authority, and secondly, it might have been considered that a Committee (the Committee of Management) may be too big a body to properly and effectively hold an inquiry. It will be noticed that in Regulation No. 35 it has been clearly stated that the sub-committee shall be a small one. Thereafter, the idea perhaps was that the inquiry should be conducted either by a singe individual or by a small sub-committee, and not by a big body like the Board of Management. It is well settled that if law requires something to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that very manner or not at all. See Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 253 (2) and Hari Vishun Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 233. 8. The learned single Judge took the view that he did take because of the use of the word `may' in Regulation No. 35. In the first place the use of the word may or shall is not fully determinative of a provision being mandatory or directory. It depends upon so many other factors also as for example, the purpose of the provision, the effect of it on a citizen, its nature and the consequences that follow : see Sardar Govindrao v. The State of Madhya Pradash, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1222, and Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1964. 9. Regulation No. 35 is an enabling provision, but is obligatory in its: nature. It was said in "Julius v. Bishop of Oxford," (1880) 5 A.C. 214 at page 244, that, enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right. 9. Regulation No. 35 is an enabling provision, but is obligatory in its: nature. It was said in "Julius v. Bishop of Oxford," (1880) 5 A.C. 214 at page 244, that, enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right. It is elementary that the powers of the Management or the Committee in regard to the dismissal or removal of a teacher have been drastically curtailed and are now regulated by the Regulations of the Board of high school and Intermediate Education. The employees of the teaching institutions have been accorded a certain status and considerable amount of security of tenure. They continue in service not on pleasure but during good behaviour. Their dismissal or removal from service has to be in conformity with the regulations. In other words, the employees of the teaching institutions have been given a legal right to continue in service until they are removed or dismissed in accordance with the regulations and the law; and since their dismissal or removal must be preceded by an inquiry. the right to have an inquiry, itself is a legal right with the employees of the institutions governed by the regulations. For this reason even though the word `may' has been used in Regulation No. 35, the provision itself is mandatory and has been made to secure to a teacher or a Headmaster or a Principal not only fairplay but also a thorough and proper inquiry before his dismissal from service is brought about. For these reasons we are unable to agree with Satish Chandra, J. that Regulation No. 35 is merely directory. 10. In the instant case that Regulation has not been complied with, and no inquiry officer or sub-committee was appointed to inquiry into the conduct of the appellant. Since the removal or dismissal of the appellant is subject to inquiry being held as contemplated by Regulations Nos. 35 and 36, and that has not been done, the order of the appellant's dismissal cannot be sustained. In view of our decision with regard to the scope and interpretation of Regulation No. 35, it is not necessary to enter in to the consideration of the other question raised before us that the appellant did not have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 11. In view of our decision with regard to the scope and interpretation of Regulation No. 35, it is not necessary to enter in to the consideration of the other question raised before us that the appellant did not have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 11. We allow this special appeal, set aside the judgment of Satish Chandra, J, date 23-2-1968, and dismiss writ Petition No. 3120 of 1967 but direct the parties to bear their own costs.