In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing resolution No. 3 (a) dated 6.4.92 of the Governing Body of NC College, Badarpur, in the district of Karimganj, Assam, and the show cause notice dated 21.4.92 issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of NC College, Badarpur, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service The petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to allow him to hold the post of Principal of NC College, Badarpur. 2. The relevant facts as stated in the writ petition are that since 1968, the petitioner has been working as the Principal and Secretary of NC College, Badarpur. By order dated 9.3.87 of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, (for short, the DPI, Assam), the petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary and, thereafter, by order dated 22.8.89, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect from 23.8.89, as disciplinary action was contemplated against him for alleged lapses of financial irregularity, insubordination and negligence of duties. It would appear from the said order of suspension (Annexure A) that the order of suspension was passed pursuant to resolution No. 3 adopted by the Special Body of NC College, Badarpur, in its meeting on 20.6.89 and the said resolution has been approved by the DPI, Assam, in his letter dated 17.7.89. Thereafter, the Governing Body of NC College appointed Sri K. Dutta Choudhury,, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karmganj District, to enquire into various charges levelled Against the petitioner and after enquiry he submitted his report to the Secretary of the Special Body of NC College, Badarpur, under his letter dated 19.10.91. The enquiry report was placed before the Special Body of NC College, Badarpur, in its meeting held on 20.10.91 and the Special Body resolved to withdraw the suspension of the petitioner and reinstate him to his original post of Principal of NC College, Badarpur, immediately and to take necessary steps to obtain approval from the appropriate authority for such withdrawal of suspension and reinstatement of the petitioner in the post of Principal. The Special Body also resolved in its meeting held on 20.10.91 that the enquiry report should be scrutinised along with relevant records of the College by a committee comprising of Sri BM Nath Choudhury and Sri AK Deb, Member and Secretary of the Special Body respectively, and the said committee should submit a report of their findings as early as possible. Pursuant to the afore-said resolution of the Special Body, the petitioner was reinstated as Principal of NC College, Badarpur, with immediate effect by the order of the Secretary of the Special Body dated 21.10.91 (Annexure B) By the said order, however, the petitioner was informed that the decision regarding suspension period shall be intimated to him later. Thereafter, the sub-committee comprising of Sri BM Nath Choudhury and Sri AK Deb submitted their report dated 6.11.91 (Annexure D) to the President of the Special Body of NC College, Badarpur, wherein they gave their opinion that the enquiry report cannot be accepted in the interest of justice. The said report dated 6.11.91 of the sub­committee was placed before the Special Body in its meeting held on 30.11.91 and the Special Body unanimously resolved that the report of the sub-committee be accepted and the report of the Inquiring Officer be rejected and that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner be dropped. In accordance with the said resolution of the Special Body, the petitioner was intimated by letter dated 3.3.92 (Annexure D) of Sri AK Deb, Secretary of the Special Body of NC College, that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been dropped and set aside by the Special Body and the Special Body has decided to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefit treating the suspension period as on service and duty. 3. Thereafter, a new Governing Body of NC College, Badarpur, was constituted which passed resolution No. 3 (a) in its meeting held on 6,4,92 agreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and holding that all charges against the petitioner except the charge on Item No. 4 of the charge-sheet was approved and pursuant to the said resolution in its meeting held on 6.4.92, a notice dated 21.4.92 (Annexure E) was served on the petitioner by the Secretary of the Governing Body, Sri Kajal Bondopadhaya, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be removed from service. 4. 4. On 14.5.92, this Court while issuing Rule, passed interim order staying the operation of the impugned show cause notice dated 21.4.92 (Annexure E). An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Governing Body and the Principal-cum-Secretary of the college and in reply to the said affidavit in-opposition, a rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. At the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as per the de facto doctrine explained by this Court in the decision reported in (1989)1 GLR 155 and by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1991) 1 SCC 761 , the decisions of the Special Body of the college in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 for with­drawal of suspension of the petitioner and for his reinstatement in the post of Principal of the college and for setting aside the enquiry report and dropping the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner will be effective and binding even if it is held that the said Special Body was not duly constituted under law. Mr. Das also submitted relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 that a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was a judicial proceeding and once the Special Body applied its; mind and took its decision rejecting the enquiry and dropping the discipli­nary proceeding and the said decision of the Special Body was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 3.3.92 (Annexure D), the decisions were binding on the subsequent Governing Body of the college as well as the petitioner and it was not open for the Governing Body to reconsider the matter again and adopt a resolution accepting the enquiry report in its meeting held on 6.4.92 and issue the show cause notice dated 21.4.92 to the petitioner. Accordingly, the resolution No. 3 (a) of the Governing Body of the college dated 6.4.92 and the show cause notice dated 21.4.92 of the Secretary of the Governing Body(Annexure E)are liable to be quashed. Mr. Accordingly, the resolution No. 3 (a) of the Governing Body of the college dated 6.4.92 and the show cause notice dated 21.4.92 of the Secretary of the Governing Body(Annexure E)are liable to be quashed. Mr. Das further submitted that under Rules 19 and 24 of the Assam Aided College Manage­ment Rules, 1976 (for short, the 1976 Rules), no power has been vested in the Governing Body to review its decision and it has been settled by the Apex Court in various decisions including the decision reported in AlR 1970 SC 1273 that the power to review is not an inherent power but has to be conferred expressly by law. According to Mr. Das, since no such power to review a judicial decision has been vested on the Governing Body under the 1976 Rules, the resolution No 3 (a) dated 6.4.92 of the Governing Body of the college in so far as it reviews the decision taken at the meetings of the Special Body on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 for reinstating the petitioner and dropping the disciplinary proceeding are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. Mr. Das also brought to my notice the averments in the further additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 21.10.91 (Annexure B), the petitioner joined his duties and took charge of the office of the Principal of the NC College, Badarpur, on 21.10.91 and on 12.11.91, this Court passed orders in Civil Rule No. 441 of 1991 to maintain status quo and this would mean that the petitioner is still continuing as Principal of the college and this position has been confirmed by letter dated 30.5.92 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department to the DPI (HA), Assam (Annexure D to the further additional affidavit). 6. Mr.DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submitted that serious charges of misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 2,73,418.17 and of insubordination were levelled against the petitioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj District, acting as the Inquiring Officer, had submitted an enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and the Assistant Director of Audit (Local Fund) Assam, Guwahati, had also submitted an audit report confirming misappropriation by the petitioner. 2,73,418.17 and of insubordination were levelled against the petitioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj District, acting as the Inquiring Officer, had submitted an enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and the Assistant Director of Audit (Local Fund) Assam, Guwahati, had also submitted an audit report confirming misappropriation by the petitioner. This is, therefore, not a case where this Court should exercise its discretionary equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti­tution of India and interfere in the matter. Mr. Choudhury has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs. Prabhn, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 481 , for his aforesaid submission. Mr. Choudhury also submitted that there is no dispute that Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules applied to the NC College, Badarpur, and under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules no final decision can be taken by the Governing\Body of the college regarding .suspension of teaching or non-teaching staff of the college without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam and in the present case, it was only with such prior approval of the DPI, Assam, in his letter dated 17.7.89 that the petitioner had been placed under suspension with effect from 23.8.89 and the said suspension could not be withdrawn without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam. Accordingly, when the Special Body of the college adopted a resolution dated 20.10.91 for withdrawal of suspension of the petitioner, it made it clear that the said resolution of the Special Body for withdrawal of suspension of the petitioner and for reinstatement of the petitioner to the original post of Principal of the college would be subject to approval from the appropriate authority. But no approval as such was obtained from the DPI, Assam, as required under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules to the withdrawal of suspension of petitioner. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that similarly no approval has been taken from the DPI, Assam, to the resolution dated 30.11.91 of the Special Body rejecting the enquiry report and dropping the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. According to Mr. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that similarly no approval has been taken from the DPI, Assam, to the resolution dated 30.11.91 of the Special Body rejecting the enquiry report and dropping the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. According to Mr. Choudhury, therefore, the resolutions of the Special Body in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 for reinstating the petitioner and for dropping the disciplinary proceeding against him have not been adopted in strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules and cannot have any finality even if the resolutions have been communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 3.3.92 (Annexure D) of the Secretary to the Special Body of the college. In this context, Mr. Choudhury has also brought to my notice the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the effect that after the Special Body was dissolved and the regular Governing Body was constituted by notification dated 4.1.92, by letter dated 27.3.92 (Annexure X), the DPI, Assam, requested the President of the regular Governing Body to place the enquiry report before the Governing Body for taking necessary action as per rules and pursuant to the said instruction of the DPI. Assam, the matter was placed before the regular Governing Body in its meeting held on 6.4.92 and the Governing Body came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for taking disciplinary action under Rule 7 (vi) of the Assam (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1965, which had been adopted by the college and the impugned notice dated 21.4.92 was issued to the petitioner in accordance with the Rule 7 (vi) of the Assam (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from service. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the impugned notice dated 21.4.92 (Annex­ure E) is only a show cause notice and no order of removal of the petitioner from service has yet been passed by the respondent No 3. Hence, the writ petition is pre-mature and should be dismissed in limine by this Court. 7. In reply, Mr. Das submitted that Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules does not apply to an interim suspension during or in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding but applies to suspension by way of punishment. Mr. Hence, the writ petition is pre-mature and should be dismissed in limine by this Court. 7. In reply, Mr. Das submitted that Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules does not apply to an interim suspension during or in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding but applies to suspension by way of punishment. Mr. Das also submitted that Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules does not require that prior appro­val of the DPI, Assam, should be taken for reinstatement of an employee. He also submitted that there is no provision in the 1976 Rules that the Governing Body will take a judicial decision in a disciplinary proceeding only after prior approval of the DPI, Assam. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the question for determination in this writ petition is whether a decision of the Governing Body of an Aided College for withdrawal of suspension and for dropping disciplinary proceeding against the Principal without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, would be final and binding on the parties. This question can at best be resolved by a reference to the very language used in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules, which is quoted herein below : "18. The proceedings of the Governing Body's meeting of Aided Colleges under deficit system of grant-in-aid shall be sent to the Director of Public Instruction and to the Gauhati University or Dibrugarh University and no final decision, regarding appointment, promotions, suspension, termina­tion, removal or dismissal of teaching or non reaching staff including the Principal or construction involving Rs.5,00,000 or more shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. The proceeding book shall be kept open for inspection by any Officer of the Education Department and the Gauhati University/Dibrugarh Univer­sity." (emphasis supplied). The language of the aforesaid Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules makes it clear that no final decision regarding suspension of teaching or non-teaching staff including the Principal of the college shall be taken by the Governing Body without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam. The language of the aforesaid Rule 18 does not say that prior approval of the DPI, Assam, is required only when suspension is made by way of punishment. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the submission of Mr. The language of the aforesaid Rule 18 does not say that prior approval of the DPI, Assam, is required only when suspension is made by way of punishment. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Das under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules that no approval of the DPI, Assam, is required for interim suspension pending or in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against the staff of the college. Further, the aforesaid language in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules would show that no final decision regarding suspension of the staff can be taken without prior approval of the DPI, Assam. Therefore, where prior approval has been taken from the DPI, Assam, for suspension of teaching or non-teaching staff or the Principal of the college, in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding, prior approval of the DPI, Assam, will also be required when after the disciplinary proceeding is over, the suspension order relating to teaching or non-teaching staff is sought to be withdrawn. This is because the words regarding suspension are wide enough to include not only suspension but also withdrawal of suspension. The further contention of Mr. Das that for reinstatement no prior approval of the DPI, Assam, is required under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules is also misconceived because in the present case reinstatement of the petitioner is only a consequence of withdrawal of the suspension which requires prior approval of the DPI, Assam. 9. Since, in the present case, the petitioner had been placed under suspen­sion in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him with the prior approval of the DPI, Assam in his letter dated 17.7.89, the suspension of the petitioner cannot be withdrawn after the disciplinary proceeding is over without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. Accordingly, the resolution of the Special Body of the college on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 and the orders of the Secretary of the Special Body of college dated 21.10.91 (Annexure B) and dated 3.3.92 (Annexure D) withdra­wing the suspension of the petitioner and dropping the disciplinary proceed­ing against the petitioner cannot be considered as final and binding on the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 inasmuch as they did not have the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, as required under Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. On the contrary, the letter dated 27.3.93 of the DPI, Assam, (Annexure X) requesting the President of the regular Governing Body to place the enquiry report before the Covering Body for taking action as per Rules would clearly show that the DPI, Assam not approved the decisions of the Special Body of the college in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 rejecting the enquiry report dropping the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and withdrawing the suspension against the petitioner. Since no finality can be attached to the decisions of the Special Body taken in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91, it was open for the Governing Body of the college to reconsider the enquiry report in its meeting held on 6.4.92 and take decisions thereon. 10. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhitta Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 196 SC 395, relied on by Mr. Das, Mudholkar, J held that although the final order of the disciplinary authority in a discipli­nary proceeding is a judicial order, such an order does not attain finality and is not binding on the parties until it is expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India and is communicated to the person affected by it. Thus, on an interpretation of Article 166 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that since the order had not been made in accordance with the said Article 166 of the Constitu­tion, the order had not become final and binding on the parties. In the present case, by the same logic, since the decisions of the Special Body in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 and the orders of the Secretary dated 21.10.91 and 3.3.92 withdrawing the suspension against petitioner were not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules the said decisions were not final and binding on the Governing Body of the college even though they were communicated to the petitioner. 11. Regarding the submission of Mr. 11. Regarding the submission of Mr. Das that in the absence of specific provision in the 1976 Rules conferring the power of review, the Governing Body has no power to review the decision of the Special Body in the meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91, I am of the view that since the decisions of the Special Body in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 were without the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, and were not final decisions as per Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules, such decisions which were not final and could be (reviewed by the Governing Body and the principle that a judicial decision cannot be reviewed in the absence of express provisions in the Rules for such review will only apply to final decisions made with the prior approval of the I DPI, Assam, in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. " 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that that the decision of the Special Body of the college in its meetings held on 20.10.91 and 30.11.91 for withdrawal of suspension of the petitioner and rejecting the enquiry report and for dropping the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and reinstating him as Principal of the college were not final decisions taken with the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, and the respondents cannot be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Principal of the college. Further, the Governing Body of the college could consider the matter afresh in the meeting held on 6.4.92 pursuant to the request of the DPI, Assam, in his letter dated 27.3.92 and take a decision in the matter. From the extract of the resolution of the Governing Body adopted in its meeting held on 6.4.92, however, it appears that the Governing Body has already come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges except the charge under Item No. 4 on the basis of the enquiry report and the audit report placed before the Governing Body, and pursuant to the said resolution, the Secretary of the Governing Body has issued the notice dated 2l.4.y2 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he will not be removed from service and along with the said show cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report has been sent to the petitioner. Thus, before giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representa­tion against the enquiry report, the Governing Body has already agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner except under Item No 4 stood proved against the petitioner. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Managing Director, ECIL ts. P. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the Supreme Court has held that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions about the guilt of delinquent employee on the basis of an enquiry report of the Inquiring Officer, the delinquent employee should be given opportunity to reply to the Inquiring Officers' findings and it is then for the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record, the report of Inquiring Officer and the representation of the employee against the report of the Inquiring Officer, and thereafter come to his own conclusion as to whether the delinquent employee was guilty of charges or not. According to aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this is a basic requirement of principle of natural justice. In the present case, since the show cause notice dated 21.4.92 (Annexure E) has been served on the petitioner requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from the service, I am of the opinion that the principles of natural justice require that pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner shall not only have an opportunity to show cause against the propo­sed penalty of removal from service but shall also have the opportunity to file a representation against the findings of the Inquiring Officer and on such representation being filed by the petitioner, the Governing Body shall take into consideration the enquiry report, the representation of the petitioner against the enquiry report, and the evidence on record and thereafter come to its own conclusion as to whether the petitioner is guilty of any of the charges levelled against him and is liable for punishment and thereafter take a final decision with the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, as required by Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. 13. 13. In the result, the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned resolu­tion dated 6.4.92 of the Governing Body of the NC College and the impugned notice dated 21.4.92 of the Secretary of the Governing Body of NC College fails and the interim order dated 14.5.92 is vacated, but the respondents No. 3 and 4 shall allow the petitioner to file a representation within 30 days from today not only against the proposed penalty of removal from service but also against the findings of the Inquiring Officer in the enquiry report and on such representation being filed by the petitioner, the Governing Body shall take into consideration the said representation of the petitioner, the enquiry report and the evidence on record and take a decision in accordance with law with the prior approval of the DPI, Assam, 14. The writ petition if disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.