ORDER : 1. We have heard Sri U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, P. Kasilingam, respondents No. 1 presented his case in person. On a consideration of the matter, we think we should decline to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. 2. However, Sri U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, submitted that certain observation in the submitted that certain observations in the judgment as to the lack of the power in the Governing Council to ratify the action of the Principal may not be supportable and at all events unnecessary to support the conclusion reached and that, therefore, those observations may be deleted. We think we should accept the submission and the question of correctness of these observations is left open. Sri Lalit also said that the management should be free to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. The High Court at paragraph 14 of the appellate judgment has reserved this liberty. It is, however, made clear that nothing in the order of the High Court not the dismissal of this petition here should come in the way of either the Principal or the Governing Council, within respective fields of their powers, to initiate such fresh proceedings as they may consider appropriate in regard to the misconduct attributed to the first-respondent. 3. Subject as aforesaid the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.