JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows : Sinha, J.: This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 4th May, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the petitioner's writ application questioning the order dated 24.06.1991 passed by the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dismissing the Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, inter alia against an order issuing a second show-cause notice in a disciplinary proceedings filed against the writ petitioner was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the said writ application, inter alto, had prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing the aforementioned order passed by the Appeal Committee is also for a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint an Administrator in the school in place of the Managing Committee and for a declaration that the appointment of the respondent Nripati Chowdhury as Administrator of the school was Illegal and void. 3. The fact of the matter shortly stated is as follows :- The petitioner at the material time was appointed as a Head master on 01.01.1963. The term of the Managing Committee was valid till 30th June, 1985. The term of the Managing Committee was extended till November 30.1986. On or about 6th May, 1987 an Administrator was appointed as Managing Committee bad become defunct. On 1st September, 1989 the appellant was placed under suspension which was subsequently approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). An appeal was preferred by the appellant against the said order of suspension before the Appeal Committee which was marked as Appeal No.6 of 1990. 4. On or about 12th September, 1989 a charge sheet was issued as against the petitioner enlisting as many as 18 charges contained in pages 146 to 173 of the Paper Book. 5. The Administrator in terms of the said charge-sheet dated 12th September, 1989 asked the appellant to submit his reply within a fortnight from the date of receipt thereof so as to enable him to offer reasonable facilities to defend himself in accordance with Rule 28(8) of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 as Amended. 6. 6. The appellant sought for inspection of a large number of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet by his letter dated 23.09.1989 He was given inspection of some of the documents between 26.09.1989 to 06.11.1989. On 13.11.1989 be submitted a reply reserving his right to submit a further reply in the event be was granted inspection of the other documents. A writ petition was filed by several guardians of the school questioning appointment of the Administrator which was marked as C.O. No. 7746(W) of 1989 A second show-cause notice was issued by the Administrator on 06.03.1990 asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why a punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him stating that upon consideration of the reply submitted by him and he had come to the said conclusion upon perusal the relevant document Including the charge-sheet and reply that he bas committed the said misconducts in the said notice it was further stated that all relevant documents including the report of Enquiry officers were submitted to the Committee constituted under Section 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1963 for its consideration and approval of the first part of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 28(8) of the said Rules and the said Committee in its meeting dated 22nd February, 1990 after thorough scrutiny of the relevant papers and documents was pleased to grant approval of the said first part of the disciplinary proceedings drawn against him and he was permitted to draw the second part of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of the Management Rules whereafter the aforementioned charge-sheet dated 12.09.1939 had been issued. 7. The appellant filed a writ petition on 20th March, 1990 which was marked as C. O. No. 3419(W) of 1990 and obtained an interim order. An appeal was also preferred by him before the Appeal Committee questioning the aforementioned show-cause which was marked as Appeal No. 12 of 1991. in the mean time three guardians of the students reading in the said school moved a writ application being C. O. No. 7746(W) of 1989 wherein the appellant was arrayed as one of the respondents. in the said writ petition also an interim order was issued directing the concerned respondents not to pass any final order in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. in the said writ petition also an interim order was issued directing the concerned respondents not to pass any final order in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. By an order dated 19th February, 1991 Mohitosh Majumder, J., disposed of C.O. No. 3419(W) of 1990 by directing the 'petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appeal Committee and the Appeal Committee was directed to dispose of the same on merit; pursuant whereto the petitioner preferred an Appeal on 22,03.1991. By an order dated 01.06.1991 the Appeal Committee held that Appeal No. 12 of 1991 wherein the petitioner questioned the second show-cause notice was incompetent as no final order had been passed therein. It also dismissed Appeal No.6 of 1990 on merits. 8. On 7th July, 1992 the appellant filed an application for re hearing of CO. No. 3419(W) of 1990 which had been disposed of on 19.02.1991 and upon re-hearing Ajit Sengupta, J., passed an order upholding the order of the Appeal Committee dismissing the Appeal No. 6 of 1990, but directed re-hearing of Appeal No. 12 of 1991. 9. In the mean time another writ application was filed by the petitioner on 22.6.1992 being C.O. No. 17116(W)/92. In the said writ application an order of status quo was passed by K.M. Yusuf, J. However, it was observed that since F.M.A.T. No. 697 of 1991 is pending before the Division Bench, the said writ application should also be placed before the Division Bench. In the mean time the Board preferred an appeal against the interim order passed on (1) C.O. NO. 7746(W)/89, Re : Sunil Pal & Ors., which had been moved by the guardians and the said appeal was marked as F.M.A.T. No. 697/97. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of C.O. No. 7746(W)/89 as also C.O. No. 17116(W)/92 and passed an order directing the Appeal Committee of the Board to re-hear the Appeal No. 12 of 1991 within six weeks with liberty to the appellant to file fresh grounds of appeal and in the mean while status quo was directed to be maintained. 10. On 17th June, 1993, which was the date fixed for hearing, as the petitioner was not present, the Appeal Committee dismissed the Appeal No. 12/91 for default. 10. On 17th June, 1993, which was the date fixed for hearing, as the petitioner was not present, the Appeal Committee dismissed the Appeal No. 12/91 for default. Upon an application moved by the petitioner in the said F.M.A.T. No. 697/97, the Division Bench set aside the said order and fixed the date for hearing of the appeal on 12th November, 1993, on which date the said Appeal was beard and dismissed. On 19th January. 1994 the order of dismissal was issued and the same had been served upon the petitioner through special messenger. 11. The petitioner filed the said writ application questioning the aforementioned order Mr. Chatterjee raised several contentions in support of this appeal the learned Counsel, inter alia, submitted that the appointment of the Administrator by the President was in violation of Section 28(2) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act as there existed no emergency. According to the learned Counsel, in terms of the said provision the President was to submit a detailed report to the Executive Committee of the Board stating all the facts and circumstances necessiting exercise of his emergency power which bad not been done. It was submitted that the Administrator was appointed at a' point of time when the term of the Managing Committee did not expire nor the Managing Committee was superseded in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Rules. The learned Counsel contended that in this view of the matter the finding of the learned Trial Judge to the effect that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the appointment of the Administrator must be held to be bad in law. It was further contended that in this situation even the doctrine of acquiescence shall not apply. The learned Counsel further had taken us through various documents to show that in the instant case the principles of natural Justice have not been complied with. 12. Mr. Arun Mitra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty of various charges including the charges of defalcation. It was submitted that the petitioner got a writ application moved by the guardians and obtained orders in his favour although be was arrayed as a respondent. 12. Mr. Arun Mitra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty of various charges including the charges of defalcation. It was submitted that the petitioner got a writ application moved by the guardians and obtained orders in his favour although be was arrayed as a respondent. The learned Counsel contends that the petitioner is estopped and precluded from questioning the appointment of the Administrator as he himself applied for his extension before the said Administrator. Reliance in this connection bas been placed on (2) Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 1616 . The learned Counsel submitted that from a perusal of the order passed by the Appeal Committee It would appear that the said order bad been passed upon consideration of all the documents and records and It acted with all fairness but unfortunately a typographical error crept therein as regards the tenure of the Managing Committee Inasmuch as instead and in place of 30.11.1986, 30.11.1987 has been mentioned and the petitioner seeks to take advantage thereof although in the writ application itself the writ petitioner admitted that the tenure of the Managing Committee expired on 30.11.1986. The learned Counsel contends that all the requirements of Rule 28(8) of the Rule have been complied with. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner was given an opportunity of being beard and all other opportunities to defend himself and thus principles of natural Justice have been complied with. The learned Counsel submits relying on the decision of (3) State of U. P & Ors, v Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh etc. reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot and does not permit the High Court to convert a writ petition into an appeal and the same is directed not against the merit of the decision but is confined to the decision making process It was submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the records in the order of the Appeal Committee nor can it be said that it suffers from the vice of non-application of the mind. It is submitted that the petitioner has questioned the said order only by filing an application for amendment of the writ application which should not be allowed particularly in view of the fact that the Committee constituted under Section 24 bas approved the proposal of dismissal. 13. We agree with the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the petitioner in view of his conduct is estopped and precluded from questioning the appointment of the Administrator. Apart from the fact the petitioner had worked under the Administrator for a pretty long time, be sought for extension of his tenure as Headmaster, accepted the charge-sheet and submitted reply thereto without any demur whatsoever. At no point of time the petitioner questioned the legality of appointment of the Administrator as such. It is now well known that if a person submits himself to the jurisdiction of an authority without any demur whatsoever, he cannot subsequently change the stand and question his jurisdiction for the first time in a proceedings under the writ jurisdiction of this case. Reference in this connection may be made to (4) Gandhlnagar Motor Transport Society v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 202 and (5) Sohan Singh v. General Manager; Ordinance Factory reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1862. 14. However, the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is the scope, purport and Intent of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules. 15. Before adverting to the said question, the admitted facts may be noticed. The petitioner as indicated hereinbefore was charged with very serious imputation of misconduct including defalcation. in Paragraph 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Administrator in C. O. No, 3419(W) of 1990 the deponent admitted that no enquiry was made on the charge-sheet by him or any authorised person and as such giving opportunity by the said deponent regarding the said enquiry does not or cannot arise. 16. in a letter dated 26th September, 1989 the petitioner informed the teacher-in-charge that he bad come to the school to consult the necessary papers and reports in connection with his letter dated 2309 1989 (in terms whereof the petitioner asked for inspection of the documents) and thereby requested him to furnish the papers so that he can go through the same and make copies of the relevant portions. . 17. . 17. On the said date be was allowed to take copy of the accounts for the year 1982-83 although be had come to take inspection of the papers as regards accounts of 1981-82 and 1985-86. On 26th September, 1989 he took copies of the Audit Reports for the years 1984/85 to 1985-86. On 30th September, he copied the document mentioned in item No.3 of the annexed list of his letter dated 23.09.1989. He was allowed to make inspection of some documents on 2nd November, 1989 and was a1w allowed assistance of Sri Chanchal Biswal, Office Clerk. He made inspection on 3rd November, 1989, 4th November, 1989 and 6th November, 1989 and 8th November, 1989. However before the inspection of document was complete the Administrator by a letter dated 15.07.1991 at 12 Noon asked him to file his reply and further stated that a personal bearing would be given to him it was stated that at the hearing he would be entitled to raise all points in his defence. The said letter was issued after the Appeal Committee dismissed the petitioner's appeal in terms of it is order dated 01.06.1991 holding that the same was incompetent. Such bearing evidently was allowed to the petitioner in purported compliance of the order of the Appeal Committee. According to the petitioner an alleged enquiry was held behind his back only on one single item of the charges before the said notice of hearing was issued. It is contended that the respondent No.3 having already completed the alleged enquiry and having submitted the report of the alleged enquiry of the Board and the Board having already approved the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner there was no question of Administrator giving any bearing of the petitioner at that stage. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner thereafter filed the aforementioned C O. No. 3419(W) of 1950 questioning the order of the Appeal Committee dated 01.06.1991, on 31.07.1991. 18. It is relevant to note that on 06.03.1990 a second show-cause notice bad already been issued to the petitioner by the Administrator allegedly upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him and other documents. 19. The question as to whether the requirements of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules were complied with or not has to be considered keeping in view the aforementioned factual background. 19. The question as to whether the requirements of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules were complied with or not has to be considered keeping in view the aforementioned factual background. It is not disputed that by a letter dated 3rd October 1989 the petitioner in continuation of his letter dated 23.09.1989 and reply thereof dated 25.09.1989 stated that he had started the inspection of documents in respect of the charges framed against him on and from 26.09.1989. According to him as a large number of documents were required to be inspected but he could not make much progress and during five days of inspection i.e. on 26th. 27th. 28th and 30th September, 1989 and 3rd October, 1989 as he could complete only item Nos. 1 and 3 referred to in the annexure of his letter dated 23.09.1989 except the Audit Report for the year 1983-84 and 1936-87 which had not been supplied to him. According to him the documents referred to in item No.2 was not at all supplied although he had asked for the same. 20. He was to submit his reply on 4th October 1989. He, therefore. prayed for extension of time for inspection He further prayed that all arrangements be made to supply the documents mentioned in the annexure to his letter dated 23.09.1989 so that he can take inspection of all documents and give a proper reply to the so called charge-sheet served upon him He also prayed for Administrator's permission to bring with him an assistant to help him in the said job of taking notes/inspection of records which will facilitate expediting the aforesaid job. He also stated that he was ready and willing to take inspection even during summer vacation and upon completion of inspection, 7 days' time may be given to him to give reply to the charge-sheet. From the said letter it appears that various documents including the Audit Report, and Books of Accounts which were vital for the purpose of his defence were never supplied to him. From the said letter it appears that various documents including the Audit Report, and Books of Accounts which were vital for the purpose of his defence were never supplied to him. Furthermore, his prayer for extension to submit reply was refused and in that situation he submitted his reply on 13th November, 1989 which is Annexure 'D' to the writ application wherein be again stated that in view of the fact that all the documents had not been supplied to him, he could not inspect all the documents supplied to him, he is not in a position to file an effective show cause. He therefore, before dealing with the charges stated that as no proper and reasonable opportunity was given to him, be reserved his right to deal with the charges in details as and when the said documents were supplied to him. There is nothing on record to show that the aforementioned statement made by the petitioner was Incorrect. 21. The Legislature enacted West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 to establish a Board of Secondary Education in the State of West Bengal to define the powers and functions of such Board and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith. 22. Section 45 of the said Act empowers the State to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act Clause (d) of sub section (2) of Section 45 empowers the Board to make Rules as regards composition, powers and function of the Managing Committee of the Institutions in exercise of its aforementioned power the State made the said Rules. Rule 28 deals with the power of Managing Committee. 23. Rule 8(8) provides that both in aided and unaided institutions the Committee shall have the power, subject to the prior approval of the Board, to remove or dismiss permanent or temporary teachers and other employees and for the said purpose the Committee shall first draw up formal proceedings and issue charge-sheet to the teacher or the employee concerned and offer him reasonable facilities for defending himself. The delinquent employee shall submit his explanation ordinarily within a fortnight of the receipt of the charge-sheet whereafter the Committee would send to the Board all relevant papers including the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the recommendations of the Committee for the action proposed to be taken and the decision of the Committee shall be final. Proviso appended to the said Rule empowers the Board to delegate to any Committee constituted under Section 24, the powers and function vested on the Board by the said sub rule. 24. The terms of conditions of service of a teaching and non-teaching staff, therefore, are governed by the statutory Rule. His services are, therefore, protected by a statute. 25. As aided institution exercises public function. The State, thus, is entitled to make Rules or regulations protecting the services of the teachers. 26. In (6) Monmohan Singh Jaitla v. Union Territory) & Ors reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 364, the Supreme Court while considering the provision of Punjab Aided Schools (Security on Service) Act. 1969 Inter alia, held that the authorities named therein are statutory authorities and thus, they exercise quasi judicial function. Such authorities would be comprehended in the expression 'Tribunal' as used in Article 227 of the Constitution which confers power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals on the High Court throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction Referring to (7) Ajoy Hasta v. Khalid Mujid Seharverdi reported in AIR 1991 SC 487 , it was held that the aided school receiving 95% of expenses by way of great from the public exchequer and whose employees have received the statutory protection under the 1969 Act, the institution would certainly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Apex Court held that substituting the word 'public trust' in place of 'corporation', the reasons assigned in Ajoy Hasia will mutatis mutandis apply to the school and thus, the school would also be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 27. In (8) Ram Saran Shastry v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1995 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes 419 upon taking Into consideration the decision of (9) Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mokatsav Smarck Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. 27. In (8) Ram Saran Shastry v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1995 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes 419 upon taking Into consideration the decision of (9) Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mokatsav Smarck Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 ; (10) Mubarak Hassain v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) BLJR 716 ; (11) Raj Soni v. AIR Officer-in-charge Administration reported in AIR 1990 SC 1305 and (12) Francis John v. The Director of Education & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 423 as also various other decisions it was categorically held that a writ petition is maintainable against an educational institution receiving financial grant from the Government and such schools do exercise public law function inasmuch as a public body exercising public function is also amenable writ jurisdiction of this Court. 28. If a writ application is maintainable at the instance of a teacher against an aided school, there cannot be any doubt that such a writ application will. lie against the Board. The Board is all authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Committee constituted under Section 24 exercises the function of the Board by reason of the terms of delegation in its favour by the Board. 29. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 empowers the Committee to remove or dismiss permanent, temporary and other employees. Such powers, however, are to be exercised Subject to the restrictions imposed in terms of the said Rule. 30. A disciplinary proceedings as against a delinquent can be subdivided into 3 parts in terms of Rule 28(8) of the said Rules. The said Rule provides for drawing up of a formal proceeding and issuance of charge-sheet to the teacher and offering him reasonable facilities for defending himself. The word 'formal proceeding' evidently means a proceeding initiated for the purpose of enquiring into the charges against the delinquent employee in the said proceeding, the delinquent must be offered reasonable facilities for defending himself which, without any shadow of doubt, means that the principles of natural Justice have to be complied with. The Rule of audi alteram partem roots in fairness. It entitles the delinquent to have a fair hearing. The Rule of audi alteram partem roots in fairness. It entitles the delinquent to have a fair hearing. Charges when drawn up as against a delinquent are required to be proved in a proceedings after offering him reasonable facilities for defending himself. The word ‘facilities’ imports procedural fairness. 31. Unless the delinquent is provided with the facilities to have Inspection and/or take copy of the documents upon which the Committee/ Administrator relies upon, he cannot file a show came, nor can the same satisfy the requirements of giving all opportunities to the delinquent Officer to defend himself. 32. Unless an effective show-cause is filed, the question of consideration thereof by the disciplinary authority .at the first instance and Section 24 Committee at the second instance for the purpose of grant or approval would not arise. 33. Moreover, the principles of natural Justice in relation to a domestic enquiry must be held to comprise of two basic elements, i.e. the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Managing Committee or the Administrator and right to examine witnesses in his favour. He at least is entitled to examine himself and make submissions as regards his defences. Unless, in my considered opinion, the Committee takes recourse to the said formalities, it cannot be said to have offered reasonable facilities for defending to a delinquent. 34. The Managing Committee or the Administrator must also record reasons as to how it has come to the conclusion for taking disciplinary action against the delinquent. Such reasons must be based on the materials on records. Section 24 Committee can permit the Managing Committee Administrator to Issue formal notice calling upon the teacher or the employee concerned, to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed or removed from the service only when the Board considers the material on records and thus comes to a conclusion that there are sufficient ground for taking disciplinary action. Such a consideration must be based on the materials which have been collected in the formal proceedings drawn up as against the delinquent employee. No document can be looked into which has been processed behind the back of the delinquent or which was not supplied to him or he was not allowed to take inspection thereof. 35. Such a consideration must be based on the materials which have been collected in the formal proceedings drawn up as against the delinquent employee. No document can be looked into which has been processed behind the back of the delinquent or which was not supplied to him or he was not allowed to take inspection thereof. 35. Upon receipt of the reply to the second show-cause notice the Managing Committee/Administrator ex facie is required to take into consideration the same and only in the event if it satisfied that reply to the second show cause notice is unsatisfactory, it is to be sent again to the Board together with all relevant papers including the explanations submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the recommendations of the Committee for the action proposed to be taken. 36. Only when the power is exercised by the Committee to dismiss permanent or temporary teachers and other employees, the question of grant of prior approval of the Board thereto arises. 37. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 has not been happily drafted This Court while interpreting the said provision, cannot rewrite the statute but can certainly "iron out the creases". Sub. rule (8) of Rule 28 is a beneficent le~islatlon so far as the delinquent employees are concerned against whom the disciplinary proceedings is sought to be taken. Section 24 Committee while granting approval of any of action of the Managing Committee/Administrator in terms of sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 must assign reasons. It must also satisfy itself that all reasonable facilities to defend himself has been granted by the Managing Committee to the delinquent which would, Inter alia, include supply of the reasons of the Committee assigned in favour of taking disciplinary action and as also the recommendations for the purpose of giving proper opportunity to reply to the second show-cause notice. 38. It is pertinent to note that although the decision of the Board is final so far as the Committee is concerned, the delinquent employee will have a right to prefer an appeal in terms of the provision of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeals by Appeal Committee) Regulation, 1964. 38. It is pertinent to note that although the decision of the Board is final so far as the Committee is concerned, the delinquent employee will have a right to prefer an appeal in terms of the provision of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeals by Appeal Committee) Regulation, 1964. The said regulations have been framed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in exercise of its power under sub• section (3) of Section 7 read with, sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act An Appeal Committee is constituted under Section 28 of the Act. Such an Appeal may be flied by a delinquent employee against any decision of the Managing Committee including a decision under sub-rule (8) of Rule 28 of the Management Rules. 39. The Appeal Committee is a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, enjoined with a duty to see that it exercises its jurisdiction keeping in view the provisions of the Management Rules. It has also a statutory duty to see that procedural fairness has been complied with. 40. In the Instant case no enquiry was conducted except granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file a show-cause and that too without giving him the opportunity to take inspection of all the documents. A second show cause notice was served upon obtaining an approval of Section 24 Committee. Nothing has been placed before the writ Court or this Court to show as to on what basis such approval had been granted. Evidently no hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of a second show-cause notice. 41. The Administrator is the disciplinary authority in the Instant case he has Issued charge-sheet in a given case he may also be the complainant. 42. In such a situation, the Section 24 Committee and/or the Appeal Committee have an onerous duty to see that no procedural impropriety is committed by the Managing Committee/Administrator. 43. The profession of teaching is said to be a noble one. Once a Headmaster of the institution is dismissed from services on the ground of defalcation of a huge amount, not only his right to earn livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed, it also casts a severe stigma. 43. The profession of teaching is said to be a noble one. Once a Headmaster of the institution is dismissed from services on the ground of defalcation of a huge amount, not only his right to earn livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed, it also casts a severe stigma. He may also be prosecuted in a criminal case. 44. The principles of natural Justice, therefore, have to be viewed in the light of the provision of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. in (13) D. K Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. reported in 1993 (3) SCC 259 , the Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the effect of a dismissal without complying with the principles of natural Justice. 45. The Apex Court also' held that the word 'civil consequences' is of wide amplitude which includes legal rights. 46. As Indicated hereinbefore it is absolutely clear that the principles of natural Justice have not been complied with in the petitioner's case. He has been condemned almost unheard. He had not been given opportunity to Inspect all the documents. 47. He was asked to show-cause even before approval of Section 24 Committee had been taken in his reply he clearly stated that the principles of natural Justice have been violated as he was not permitted to take inspection of all the relevant documents. 48. For the reasons aforementioned, the action on the part of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service cannot be upheld. For the aforementioned purpose the application for amendment to the writ petition should be allowed and in any event this Court upon taking into consideration the admitted subsequent event can mould the reliefs in order to shorten litigation. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has filed several writ applications and even got one writ application filed by the guardians of the school, we are of the opinion that at this stage no relief of back wages should be granted to the petitioner. However, we direct that the same shall depend upon the ultimate result in the departmental proceeding which may be held against the appellant in terms of this judgment. However, we direct that the same shall depend upon the ultimate result in the departmental proceeding which may be held against the appellant in terms of this judgment. The respondents are directed to give Inspection of all documents and allow the petitioner to file additional reply whereafter he may be permitted to take part in the enquiry in terms of the provision of Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules and in the light of the observation made hereinbefore. 49. Before parting with this case we must observe that the wording of Rule 28(8) are not very clear. The State may rewrite the said Rule so as to make the same clear unambiguous and explicit so that the delinquent employee, the Managing Committee the Section 24 Committee as also the Appeal Committee may clearly be made aware of their rights and functions. For the views we have taken, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions made at the bar. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 4th May, 1995. is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. Chakraborty, J.: I agree.