JUDGMENT -P.S. PATANKAR, J. :--Both these Revisions can be disposed of by this common order as point arising is the same and litigation is also between the same parties. 2. The facts in Civil Revision Application No. 471 of 1991 are as under : The petitioner came to be promoted as Principal in Shri Mahavir College run by respondent No. 1, a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1977. The respondent No. 1 resolved to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was served upon him on 29-5-1989. The petitioner sent his explanation. The respondent No. 2, an Advocate by profession, was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 7-10-1989 by passing a Resolution. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1990 for declaration that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from holding proposed enquiry. It was contended that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer without holding the preliminary enquiry by constituting a committee as per Rules and statutes framed under the 'Shivaji University Act, 1947' (hereinafter referred to as the 'University Act') is illegal and bad in law. The petitioner filed application Exh. 5 claiming interim injunction. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioner was guilty of serious lapses and many complaints are made against him by other members of teaching staff and students. It was also contended that he was responsible for certain mal-practices at the time of college examination. It was contended that governing body in its meeting on 9-8-1989 gave the petitioner a chance to represent his case. That was declined by the petitioner. The governing body conducted preliminary enquiry and prima-facie found him guilty and appointed respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer. The appointment of respondent No. 2 is as per statutes and regulations framed under University Act. The learned trial Judge accepted that preliminary enquiry was held by governing body of respondent No. 1 and it was legal. It was further held that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer is proper. The application filed by petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 22-11-1990 by filing Misc. Appeal No. 249 of 1990. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 18-4-1991 by affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. It was further held that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer is proper. The application filed by petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 22-11-1990 by filing Misc. Appeal No. 249 of 1990. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 18-4-1991 by affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. The same is challenged by filing this Revision. This Court admitted the revision and also granted interim order in terms of prayer Clause (c) which runs as follows :- "(c) In the alternative, pending hearing and final disposal of this revision application, the respondents be directed to maintain status quo in respect of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner." 3. The facts of the Civil Revision Application No. 24 of 1994 are as under:-- The respondent No. 1 suspended the petitioner on 23-11-1992 by passing the Resolution in the meeting of its governing body. The petitioner was asked to hand over charge to one professor D.R. Kunur. On 14th/15th December, 1992 a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner which contained 20 charges and petitioner was called upon to explain. On 22nd December, 1992 the petitioner sent his explanation. The governing body did not find the said explanation satisfactory and on 9-1-1993 resolved to hold the preliminary enquiry by itself. The Governing body meeting for holding the preliminary enquiry was fixed on 6-2-1993. A notice dated 29-1-1993 was issued to the petitioner. On 2-2-1993 the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1993 before Civil Judge, Kolhapur praying for declaration that resolution to hold preliminary enquiry by governing body dated 9-1-1993 was illegal and it was not in conformity with provision of the University Act and statutes framed under it. It was contended that the preliminary enquiry cannot be held by Governing body and it ought to have been held as per section 216-A read with section 217-A (II) (c) of Shivaji University Statutes framed under section 42(1) of University Act. The petitioner also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking any further steps pursuant to the said preliminary enquiry. The petitioner filed an application Exh. 5 for interim injunction. The petitioner also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking any further steps pursuant to the said preliminary enquiry. The petitioner filed an application Exh. 5 for interim injunction. The same was opposed by the respondents contending that governing body was the only body empowered to hold preliminary enquiry against the Principal under section 217-A(II) of the statutes and it was properly and legally ordered and petitioner has no prima facie case. The contention of the respondents was accepted by the trial Court and application came to be rejected on 6-2-1993. The petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 48/1993. It came to be dismissed on 22-11-1993 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur. The petitioner filed this Revision challenging the said order. The Court on 19-8-1994 admitted it and passed the following order: "Rule. To be heard with C.R.A. No. 471/91. Learned Advocate for Respondents waives notice. To be placed on Board for final hearing in the 2nd week of September, 1994. No interim relief. It is specifically made clear that enquiry to proceed and petitioner to co-op. with it. However Respondents not to pass final order." I am told at the Bar that accordingly final enquiry has been held. 4. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the preliminary enquiry held or contemplated by the governing body against the petitioner as per section 217-A (II) of the statutes was legal or whether it ought to be held under section 216-A read with section 217-A(II)(c) of the statutes by 3 members committee. My answer is that it should be held under section 216-A read with section 217-A(II)(c) by 3 members committee. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that section 217-A (II)(a) contemplates that Governing body has to pass the Resolution that holding the preliminary enquiry, if the said enquiry is going to result into the imposition of major penalty against the Principal, then it has to constitute 3 members committee as mentioned in section 216-A read with section 217-A(II)(c) of the statutes. The said committee is an independent body. He submitted that such committee is necessary so that there should be impartial enquiry as the preliminary enquiry is important. He submitted that statutes show that the Principal acts under the governing body and there should be no any bias in holding such preliminary enquiry. The said committee is an independent body. He submitted that such committee is necessary so that there should be impartial enquiry as the preliminary enquiry is important. He submitted that statutes show that the Principal acts under the governing body and there should be no any bias in holding such preliminary enquiry. This acts as a first check against any arbitrary decision to hold later on final enquiry. The Principal is given an opportunity to represent his case at that time. The findings of the preliminary enquiry are required to be placed before the governing body for consideration and Governing body has to decide regarding holding of final enquiry. It is therefore necessary to put such interpretation as otherwise the consideration contemplated by governing body would be a farce. If the governing body itself holds the preliminary enquiry then this part of section 217-A(II) would be redundant. He pointed out that if the governing body decides to hold regular enquiry then all the papers are required to be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for approval. This acts, according to him, as a second check against arbitrary decision to hold final enquiry. As against this, the learned Advocates for respondents submitted that statutes provide various sections showing that principal and teachers are treated separately. Section 216-A provides for procedure for imposing major penalties against a teacher, while section 217-A provides for the said procedure against a Principal. The provisions of section 216-A cannot be read into section 217-A. The general body has to pass a Resolution for holding preliminary enquiry and hold it. Consideration which the general body has to do thereafter is in the nature of review. He submitted that it is not a farce. It is not correct to say that there can be nothing left for consideration for governing body after the preliminary enquiry is held by it and findings recorded. The Principal is given an opportunity of hearing and this itself acts as a check as the preliminary enquiry thereafter is in consonance with the principle of natural justice. He submitted that if the governing body decides to hold final enquiry then the papers are required to be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for approval and if approved, then only final enquiry can be held. 6. He submitted that if the governing body decides to hold final enquiry then the papers are required to be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for approval and if approved, then only final enquiry can be held. 6. Let me first note the relevant provisions of University Act and statutes : Sections 2(6) of University Act defines college as follows : 2(6) "College" means a college conducted by the University or affiliated to it. Section 2(14) defines Head of Department as follows: 2(14) "Head of Department" means the Teacher principally responsible for instruction, training or research in a Department. Section 2(22) defines Principal as follows:- 2(22) "Principal" means the head of a college, specialised educational institution, post-graduate centre or other recognised institution. and section 2(23) defines Recognised Institution as follows: 2(23) "Recognised Institution" means an institution for research or specialised studies, other than an affiliated college, and recognised to be so by the University. Section 190(xx) of the statutes defines Teacher as follows :-- 190(xx) "Teacher" means and shall include Principals, Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers, Demonstrators, Tutors, Masters of Method, Directors of Physical Education in the affiliated Colleges/Recognised Institutions. The term "Teacher" includes full-time teachers as well as part time and honorary teachers. Section 197 of the statutes mentions the duties and responsibilities of the Principal of the affiliated college/Head of the Recognised Institution. Section 197(n) mentions as any other worker relating to the College/Recognised Institution or relating to the administration of the College as may be assigned to him by the governing body from time to time. It also shows that the Principal is administrative and academic head of the college and requires to manage it as per the University Act and statutes. 7. Section 211 deals with the duties of the teacher. Section 211(c) requires him to impart such lessons and instructions as the Principal/Head, shall allot him. A teacher acts under the supervision of the Principal. Section 212 gives minor and major penalties which may be imposed upon a teacher which obviously includes a Principal, in view of section 217(A)(II)(c). Section 213 deals with scope of application of penalties. Section 214 deals with the authorities competent to inflict penalties. Section 215 mentions about the procedure for inflicting minor penalties on both teacher and Principal. Section 216 provides the procedure for inflicting major penalties on a teacher. Section 213 deals with scope of application of penalties. Section 214 deals with the authorities competent to inflict penalties. Section 215 mentions about the procedure for inflicting minor penalties on both teacher and Principal. Section 216 provides the procedure for inflicting major penalties on a teacher. Section 216-A is as follows :-- (A) The service of a teacher shall not be terminated under section 211, Clause 3(ii)(1) to (6) above, without holding a full inquiry in the matter by the College/Recognised Institution. Before holding such inquiry, a preliminary inquiry shall be held by a committee consisting of- 1) Principal/Head of the Recognised Institution (Chairman of the Committee) 2) Head of the Department 3) One teacher of the College/Recognised Institution nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. This committee will find out whether there is a prima facie case against the teacher. The teacher concerned shall be given an opportunity to represent his case before this Committee. The findings of the Committee shall be forwarded to the Governing Body for further action if necessary. The rest of the said section deals with suspension, appointment of enquiry officer, charge-sheet, oral enquiry etc.. Section 217 deals with treatment of the period of suspension etc.. Section 217 deals with code of conduct and procedure for enquiry of Principals of affiliated Colleges/Heads of Recognised Institutions. Section 217-A(II) is as follows :-- 217-A(II). Procedure of Enquiry.--- a) Whenever the Governing body of an affiliated College or the Recognised Institution finds that there are grounds for holding an enquiry against the Principal of the Head of the Recognised Institution which may result in imposing major penalty, a preliminary enquiry shall be held by the Governing body into the allegations against the principal or the Head of the Institution to find out whether there is a prima facie case against him. The persons concerned shall be given an opportunity to represent his case at the time of this preliminary enquiry. The findings of this enquiry shall be considered by the Governing Body. However, before implementing the decision taken in this behalf the preliminary enquiry shall be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval to the action proposed to be taken against the Principal or the Head of the Institution. (b) On receipt of the approval of the Vice Chancellor, a regular departmental enquiry shall be ordered by the Governing Body as provided in Statute 216. (b) On receipt of the approval of the Vice Chancellor, a regular departmental enquiry shall be ordered by the Governing Body as provided in Statute 216. (c) The provision of Statutes 211 to 218 (both inclusive) shall, unless the context otherwise requires, apply to the inquiry to be held against Principal or the Head of the Institution, with the following amendments, namely :- i) For the word "teacher" the word "Principal" or Head of the "Recognised Institution" shall be substituted; ii) For the words "Principal/Head of the Recognised Institution" the words "President or Chairman of the Governing Body" shall be substituted. Section 218 deals with Tribunal of Arbitration. 8. In case the argument of the petitioner is accepted then the governing Body has to first resolve to hold preliminary enquiry. Thereafter to constitute a committee as per section 216-A for holding the preliminary enquiry against the Principal. The constitution of the said committee would be as follows :- COMMITTEE 1. President/Chairman of the Governing Body (Chairman of the Committee) 2. Head of the Department. 3. One Principal of the College (to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor). At the time of holding preliminary enquiry the Principal is required to be given an opportunity to represent his case. Further process of holding enquiry would be to place the report of the preliminary enquiry, may be in favour of the Principal or against him, before the governing body for consideration. If the preliminary report is in favour of the Principal and governing body approves it, then there would be no final enquiry. However, if such report is not approved then it can resolve to hold final enquiry but in that event all the papers are required to be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for approval of its action. In case the preliminary report is against the Principal still the governing body has to consider and it is free to resolve not to hold final enquiry but if it approves such report, the papers are required to be placed before the Vice-Chancellor for approval of final action. 9. In case the argument of respondents is accepted then the governing body has first to resolve to hold preliminary enquiry. It has to be held by the governing body itself and prepare a report regarding its conclusions, whether there is a prima facie case against the Principal. 9. In case the argument of respondents is accepted then the governing body has first to resolve to hold preliminary enquiry. It has to be held by the governing body itself and prepare a report regarding its conclusions, whether there is a prima facie case against the Principal. At that time opportunity is given to the Principal to represent his case. The findings of the governing body are again to be placed before the governing body for consideration. The governing body may approve it or disapprove it reviewing the position. The Governing body on review may disapprove it and then there would be no further action. If it is approved then the papers to be sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval of its proposed final action. If it is approved then there would be final enquiry. 10. Section 217-A(II) mentions the following requirement : "The findings of such enquiry shall be considered by the Governing Body". In case the argument of the respondent is accepted, then these words shall become redundant. There would be no question of consideration. The phrase is not used 'reconsideration' by the Governing body. If the Governing body holds the preliminary enquiry then there is no question of considering it again. It would be a mere farce. There is also no question of any review as it is not contemplated that Principal shall be heard or represented at that stage. In my opinion, the legislature wanted to create two checks so as to avoid flimsy or arbitrary enquiries against Principals, as they occupy important position in a college and require to be protected from false and frivolous allegations. It is also necessary in the larger interest of society and students. The Principal acts under the Governing body and therefore it is necessary that an independent body, which is mainly consisting of academicians, should hold preliminary enquiry. The first check is therefore provided by calling upon such body, as mentioned above, to hold the preliminary enquiry. The second check provided is that those papers are required to be submitted by the Governing body to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval if it resolves to hold final enquiry." 11. Further in my view, it is impractical, though it is not impossible, for governing body to hold such enquiry. The Governing body is a large body and cannot meet often. Further in my view, it is impractical, though it is not impossible, for governing body to hold such enquiry. The Governing body is a large body and cannot meet often. It will also be difficult for it to properly comply with the requirement of hearing which is to be given to the Principal as contemplated by section 217-A(II). Further in that event the said enquiry may be prolonged indefinitely where urgent action is needed. This is avoided in case of constitution of small committee consisting of 3 members as suggested by the petitioner and as provided under section 216-A read with section 217-A(II)(c). 12. It is true that various provisions of statutes show that clear cut distinction is made between a teacher and a Principal and learned Advocates for the Respondents are right in making that submission. But that itself does not mean that said distinction is made absolute and each provisions is separate either dealing with Principal or teacher. If that was so, then there was no necessity of providing section 217-A(II)(c). The legislature provided that wherever the word 'teacher' is used, the 'Principal' or 'the head of the Recognised Institution' be substituted in respect of provisions of sections 211 to 218 and similarly for the word 'Principal/Head of the Recognised Institution' the words 'President or Chairman of the Governing Body'. In fact even if the petitioner's argument is accepted there remains distinction between constitution of the committee for holding preliminary enquiry in case of a teacher and the constitution of the committee for such enquiry in case of a Principal. There is distinction also for initiation of the enquiry and further procedure for enquiry. This interpretation does not militate against the object of the statute but it subserves the larger one. It is not possible just to read the words of section 217-A(II). It is necessary to read them reasonably and to achieve the over all object of holding impartial preliminary enquiry and, therefore, it is necessary to read the provisions of section 216-A read with section 217-A(II) in view of section 217-A(II)(c). I accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and hold that Governing body itself is not empowered to hold the preliminary enquiry. It has to be held by constituting a committee as per section 216-A read with section 217-A(II). 13. I accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and hold that Governing body itself is not empowered to hold the preliminary enquiry. It has to be held by constituting a committee as per section 216-A read with section 217-A(II). 13. If the interpretation as suggested by the petitioner is rejected and if the interpretation suggested by the learned Advocates for the respondents, as accepted by the courts below, is approved then part of section 217-A(II) becomes redundant. The phrase the 'finding of this enquiry shall be considered by the Governing body' as found in section 217-A(II) would be of no meaning. The learned Advocates for the respondents tried to submit that reconsideration contemplated herein is by way of review. The submission is without any merit as the phrase used is not reconsideration and further this consideration does not require any notice to the Principal or hearing which would be necessary and provided, if it was by way of review. It is also in the interest of college, students and society that the preliminary enquiry should be held by independent body, mainly of academicians, who can judge the conduct of Principal better. This can be achieved if the committee for holding preliminary enquiry is constituted as per section 216-A read with section 217-A(II)(c). Further holding of enquiry by Governing body is fraught with practical difficulty. Governing Body is a large body and cannot meet frequently and hold enquiry. If the preliminary enquiry is to be held by the Governing body then it may be delayed indefinitely on one or the other count. Practical experience tells us that Governing body cannot meet often. This may in a given case of urgency defeat the very purpose and object of holding expeditious preliminary enquiry. Therefore preliminary enquiry is required to be held by a small committee consisting of 3 members and the report of such committee is only required to be considered by the Governing body. The preliminary enquiry is important and is having serious repercussions on the concerned Principal and society at large. It is also necessary that the Vice-Chancellor should know all the sides before giving his approval. It is not only the view of the Governing body. Therefore it is all the more necessary that it should be by unbiased and by expert small body. 14. Therefore, I hold that petitioner has made out prima-facie case. It is also necessary that the Vice-Chancellor should know all the sides before giving his approval. It is not only the view of the Governing body. Therefore it is all the more necessary that it should be by unbiased and by expert small body. 14. Therefore, I hold that petitioner has made out prima-facie case. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner as the point involved goes to the root of holding enquiry legally. As I have held against the respondents as regards this point, the entire exercise shall be futile if the preliminary enquiry is not held as per law and the final enquiry would frustrate. It will cause serious loss not only to the petitioner, but also to respondents. 15. In view of this the impugned judgment and order dated 18-4-1991 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 249/1990 in C.R.A.No. 471 of 1991 is set aside. The Application Exh. 5 is granted. Similarly the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur dated 22-11-1993 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 48/1993 in C.R.A. No. 24/1994 is set aside. The application Exh. 5 is granted. It is made clear that Respondent No. 1 institution is free to hold preliminary enquiry by constituting a proper committee as mentioned above and proceed. Rule made absolute is both these Civil Revision Applications. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. *****