Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Anglo Indian Schools Teachers and Staff Association represented by its Secretary. According to the dependent, there are more than 30 Anglo Indian Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu out of which 20 schools are situate in Chennai. St.Patricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School at Adyar, Chennai, is one such Anglo Indian School, having the 7th respondent herein as its Headmaster. It is said that with regard to the administration of Anglo Indian Schools, Government has formed separate Code of Rules and Regulations, and 4th respondent herein is the authority supervising the administration of the Anglo Indian Schools. Any administrative decision will be subject to the final orders of the Director of School Education, 2nd respondent herein. It is said that St.Patrick Anglo Indian School is managed by 6th respondent herein and he is the appointing authority with regard to all categories of posts in the said school. 6th respondent appointed 7th respondent herein as Headmaster of the said School from June, 1996. The reason for filing this writ petition is, 7th respondent does not have the requisite qualification for being appointed as Headmaster. The Government has fixed the following qualification for appointment as Headmaster: “Qualification:(i) A Masters degree of a University in the State or a Masters degree of equivalent standard in a certificate issued by the University of Madras for having undergone the certificate course in Science and Humanities for graduate teachers in high schools: (ii) B.T. or B.Ed. Degree of University in the State or a teaching degree of equivalent standard; (iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten years as B.T. School Assistant in a Secondary School Training School/Higher Secondary School recognised by the Director of School Education; and (iv) Must have passed the Account Test for Executive Officers or the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Parts I and (G.O.Ms.No.1825, Edn., dated 19.9.1983). Provided that the experience in the category of Headmaster and Headmistresses in a school recognized by the Director of School Education shall be taken into account for calculating the experience in the category of B.T. Assistant.” It is averred that the 7th respondent passed B.Ed., examination only in the year 1992 and that he was awarded B.Ed., degree only on 11.4.1992. He has also not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers or equivalents standard. He hails from Kerala. He has also not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers or equivalents standard. He hails from Kerala. His mother tongue is not Tamil, and he has not acquired the knowledge of Tamil language in his Higher Secondary Course. He has also not passed the second class language test in Tamil. It is also said that he does not have ten years experience as B.T. School Assistant. Without considering any of these qualifications, he has been appointed by 6th respondent. It is further said that in various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, it has been declared that the eligibility qualification should be considered at the time when the vacancy arose, and the qualification fixed for appointment of Headmaster is also not liable to be exempted. For the above reasons, petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 2, 4 and 6 to set aside the appointment of 7th respondent as Headmaster of St.Patricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Adyar, Chennai-600 020, and issue such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 5 and 7. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5, they admit that the 7th respondent is not having the requisite qualification, and hence is appointment has not been approved. They support the case of the petitioner. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by 7th respondent, the maintainability of the writ petition is challenged on the ground that an Association cannot be an aggrieved person. St.Patricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School is also a necessary party. It is also alleged that this writ petition has been filed at the instance of one S.U.Peter Surendran, against whom some disciplinary proceeding has been initiated. Regarding his qualifications, 7th respondent has stated that he studied Higher Secondary Course in Tamil Nadu and successfully completed the same in the year 1982 and thereafter he was graduated in B.A. (Economics) in Loyola College, Chennai, in 1985, and he obtained Post-Graduate Degree i.e., M.A. (Economics) in 1988. He has further said that he obtained B.Ed., Degree in the year 1990 and M.Ed., Degree in the year 1992. He was appointed as Headmaster on 14.4.1996, with effect from 1.5.1996, and, by a separate order, he was also appointed as Correspondent of the school. He has further said that he obtained B.Ed., Degree in the year 1990 and M.Ed., Degree in the year 1992. He was appointed as Headmaster on 14.4.1996, with effect from 1.5.1996, and, by a separate order, he was also appointed as Correspondent of the school. It is said that he has obtained teaching experience. It is further said that he has moved necessary application to the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools and the Director of School Education, to grant necessary exemption from 10 years teaching experience as B.T. Assistant and from possessing the qualification for Tamil, and to approve his appointment. His application is pending consideration by the authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is premature, when the exemption application is pending consideration by the authorities. He also says that he is not getting the salary of a Headmaster, but only that of a B.T. Assistant. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. W.P.No.2406 of 1998:This writ petition is by one S.U.Peter Surendran referred to earlier in the counter-affidavit filed by seventh respondent in W.P.No. 13090 of 1997, to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 7th respondent in that writ petition, viz., P.K.Joseph is the fourth respondent herein. 6. It is said that various allegations have been made against the petitioner herein, and he was charge-sheeted, and when the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not to the satisfaction of the Authorities, enquiry was conducted. Petitioner alleges that there had been various defects in the procedure and the same has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry Officer has submitted a report to the 4th respondent. It is said that a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner why he shall not be dismissed from service. It is at this juncture, the teacher has come to this court with the above writ petition. 7. One of the main reasons put forward in the writ petition is that the fourth respondent who is the Headmaster and Correspondent of the School is not eligible to be appointed as Headmaster and, therefore, he is not entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings. He prayed for quashing the entire Order and the show-cause notice. 8. 7. One of the main reasons put forward in the writ petition is that the fourth respondent who is the Headmaster and Correspondent of the School is not eligible to be appointed as Headmaster and, therefore, he is not entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings. He prayed for quashing the entire Order and the show-cause notice. 8. Fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein he supports the action taken against the petitioner, and has said that the evidence has been adduced before the Enquiry Officer, who has also found that some of the charges are true. The allegation that there is procedural irregularity or illegality is also denied, and on the basis of the enquiry report, a second show-cause notice has been issued asking the petitioner herein why he shall not be dismissed from service. In the said counter-affidavit, he has also taken a contention that he is duly qualified to be appointed as Headmaster, and he is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 9. I heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties. 10. I will first deal with W.P.No.13090 of 1997. The only question that arises for consideration in that case is, whether the seventh respondent is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster of St.Patricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School. I have already extracted the qualifications fixed by the Statute. Even according to the 7th respondents counter, he has not obtained that qualification. It is his case that he has moved the government for getting exemption and the same is pending consideration by them. It is his further case that in view of the pendency of the representation before the Authorities, this writ petition has to be dismissed either as premature, or it should be adjourned till further Orders are passed on that representation. 11. I would have considered this request if only the Government has power to grant exemption. If the Government has no power to grant exemption from the essential qualification, pendency of representation will be of no use. 12. The same question came for consideration before Jayasimha Babu, J. in P.Singarayan etc. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.Nos.6607 of 1991 and 17963 and 18718 of 1992, order dated 5.9.1995 and the learned Judge has considered this question in detail. 12. The same question came for consideration before Jayasimha Babu, J. in P.Singarayan etc. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.Nos.6607 of 1991 and 17963 and 18718 of 1992, order dated 5.9.1995 and the learned Judge has considered this question in detail. In paragraph 16 of the Order, learned Judge has said that neither the Act nor the Rules contain any provision conferring power on the Government or any of the authorities to relax any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules. All regular appointees to the posts set out in the Rules must necessarily possess the prescribed qualifications.” Learned Judge further went on and said thus: (Paras 17 to 20): “There will be many a situation where the Government may, by executive instructions fill up gaps in the Rules if such instructions are not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules. Such instructions may be relaxed by way of further executive instructions if necessary in the interest of justice. It is however, not possible to take the view that the Government has unlimited power to grant relaxation to any one who seeks relaxation from any of the requirements of the Act or Rule or the qualification prescribed in the Act and or the Rules. When no such power is conferred on the Government by the Act or the Rules, No such power in the Government can be recognised. In the case of Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India , A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 541at 546: 1984 Lab.I.C. 301: (1984)2 S.C.C. 141 : (1984)1 Lab.L.J. 314: (1984)1 Lab.L.N. 433the court while considering the case of a person who had been selected even though he did not possess the prescribed qualification, observed, “and we could not trace the source of power if any to relax essential qualifications as to experience.” In the absence of a specific statutory provision conferring the power to relax the qualification, such qualification cannot be relaxed. The Apex Court in that case held: “Therefore, on the face of it; the selection of respondent 6 for the post of Senior Bio-chemistry is utterly unsustainable, more so because there were others who fulfilled all essential qualifications… The petitioners, possessing as they do, all the qualifications prescribed for considerations when the vacancy in the post of Headmaster also. Admittedly, their case have not been considered. Admittedly, their case have not been considered. The justification offered for such non-consideration is that one of the petitioners is a Hindu, and though the other is a Roman Catholic, the School preferred to appoint a Jesuit Priest to that post. The justification so offered is alien to the scheme of the Act and the Rules. Religious denominations who run schools are not to offer promotions only from among their kith and kin, ignoring the superior claims of other persons who posses the prescribed qualifications. The institution cannot, even while receiving State aid, claim that the rules should be relaxed merely to enable it to appoint a member of its priesthood. Even assuming that it was open to the government to relax the rule, such power could only be exercised for Promoting the objects of the Act and not to condemn the wilful and deliberate flouting of the statutory rules. The impugned order granting relaxation cannot be said to have promoted the object of the Act in any manner. The object of prescribing the qualification is to ensure that only such persons who possess the requisite knowledge and experience are appointed to the post. The giving of such requirements in favour of a person who had no special achievement which could be regarded as in some way equivalent to the prescribed qualification, especially when the qualified person were available is clearly not an action which can be regarded as promoting the objects of the Act.” 13. As against the said decision, learned counsel for the seventh respondent submitted that a Division Bench of this Court has considered the question in W.A.No. 1129 of 1992. He also brought to my notice the judgment of the Bench dated 30.6.1997 delivered in that case. The said judgment was against the order in Writ Petition No. 14657 of 1988, passed by J.Kanakaraj, J. on 8.11.1991. The order of Kanakaraj, J. was taken into consideration by Jayasimha Babu, J., and the same was distinguished on facts. He also brought to my notice the judgment of the Bench dated 30.6.1997 delivered in that case. The said judgment was against the order in Writ Petition No. 14657 of 1988, passed by J.Kanakaraj, J. on 8.11.1991. The order of Kanakaraj, J. was taken into consideration by Jayasimha Babu, J., and the same was distinguished on facts. The same is clear from paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Order passed by Jayasimha Babu, J. They read thus: ”The petitioners grievance now is in relation to the order dated 29.9.1992 made by the Secretary to the Government granting exemption, in favour of the fourth respondent for his appointment as Headmaster with effect from 16.8.1990 waiving the statutory requirement of ten years B.T. teaching experience subject to the condition that he shall be paid only the post graduate assistants’ scale of pay till he completes ten years of experience. The exemption has been granted, despite Government having rightly noticed the fact that “…. There is no explicit provision in the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Act empowering the Government to relax or exempt.” The power to grant exemption has however been asserted in the impugned order by placing reliance on the following observation mentioned in the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Anjana v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No. 14657 of 1998 decided on 8.11.1991. It is the Government which has to ultimately approve the appointment to the posts in a private aided school. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has no power to relax the rules in so far as the posts in the aided schools. The Government which has to approve the appointment necessarily has the power to relax the rules in a given case.” 14. According to me, the distinction made by the learned Judge amply shows that the order of Kanakaraj, J. has no application to cases where the essential qualification has been fixed by the Government. When the matter was taken in writ appeal, their Lordships further said that the writ petitioner therein has no locus standi and the writ petition was not maintainable. The Bench said that the petitioner herein had no locus standi on the ground that he had no requisite experience. When the matter was taken in writ appeal, their Lordships further said that the writ petitioner therein has no locus standi and the writ petition was not maintainable. The Bench said that the petitioner herein had no locus standi on the ground that he had no requisite experience. The relevant portion of the Bench Judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1129 of 1992 reads thus: “The writ petitioner admittedly has no required experience or qualification on the date when the order of relaxation was passed in favour of the 4th respondent. Therefore in our opinion, the writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as on the date of filing of the writ petition.” According to me, this finding itself is sufficient to hold that the earlier observation, even if it is in favour of the seventh respondent is only an obiter. In fact, this question as to what is the power of the Government to grant exemption of an essential qualification was not a matter in issue either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. In fact, the Bench only said that in so far as posts in Aided Schools are concerned, the Government has power in a given case. As rightly distinguished by the learned Judge (Jayasimha Babu, J.), the reliance can only be for the promotion of objects of the Act and not to condone wilful or deliberate flouting of the Statutory Rules, and going by the Act or Rules, it is also clear that the relaxation can be had only provisionally under certain circumstances. In this case, the Headmasters post is a permanent post, and the 7th respondent has been appointed to a permanent vacancy. In such cases, even the Authorities cannot relax the rule and any relaxation will be to defeat the very object of the Act and it will amount to flouting the statutory rules. 15. In fact, a similar view was taken by P.Sathasivam, J. in J.Deiva Kadatcham v. The Joint Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Compound, Madras-6, Writ Petition Nos. 11257 of 1995, 13099 of 1995, 15441 of 1995 and 3818 of 1997, order dated 30.8.1997. In that case, one of the qualifications fixed was five years minimum teaching experience. From paragraph 14 of the Order, learned Judge has considered this question. 11257 of 1995, 13099 of 1995, 15441 of 1995 and 3818 of 1997, order dated 30.8.1997. In that case, one of the qualifications fixed was five years minimum teaching experience. From paragraph 14 of the Order, learned Judge has considered this question. It reads thus: “Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 prescribes qualifications, conditions of service of teachers and others persons. Sub-rule (6) to Rule 15 says that the teachers and other persons employed in private schools shall possess the qualification specified in Annexure VI. have already extracted Annexure V. Clause 1-A deals with qualification of the Headmaster, Elementary and Middle Schools. One of the qualifications for the post of Headmaster, Middle Schools is that the applicant should have worked as Secondary Grade teacher in any one of the recognised schools for a period of not less than five years after obtaining the T.S.L.C. of Secondary Grade or its equivalent. No doubt, by pointing out G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 12.5.1989 a power is given to the Chief Educational Officer to give relaxation of the condition of 5 years experience. A reading of the said Government Order clearly shows that the said relaxation is only in respect of temporary appointment of Secondary Grade Headmaster against leave vacancy. A careful analysis of the said rule, Annexure as well as subsequent clarifications of the Government clearly shows that while appointing B.Ed., Middle School Headmaster from the open market, minimum 5 years teaching experience from any recognised school should not be ignored.” It was held by the learned Judge that essential qualification cannot be exempted. The above decision was taken in Appeal in Writ Appeal No.418 of 1998. A Division Bench dismissed the appeal as per judgment dated 26.3.1998. 16. It is at this juncture, learned counsel for seventh respondent also submitted that the Institution is a minority Institution and, therefore, they are entitled to appoint a person of their choice. 17. I do not think that this argument could be accepted. Fixing a qualification for a post is only to maintain standard, and that has nothing to do with the establishing or maintaining an Educational Institution. It is only a regulatory measure which the Government is competent to impose. In fact, this legal position has already been declared in the decision reported in The Kerala Education Bill 1957 IN RE. Fixing a qualification for a post is only to maintain standard, and that has nothing to do with the establishing or maintaining an Educational Institution. It is only a regulatory measure which the Government is competent to impose. In fact, this legal position has already been declared in the decision reported in The Kerala Education Bill 1957 IN RE. , A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956 The relevant portion is in paragraph 31 of the judgment (at page 982 of the reports), which reads thus: “…We have already observed that Art.30(1) gives two rights to the minorities. (1) to establish and (2) to administer, educational institutions of their choice. The right to administer cannot obviously include the right to mal-administer. The minority cannot surely ask for aid or recognition for an educational institution run by them in unhealthy surroundings, without any competent teachers possessing any semblance of qualification, and which does not maintain each a fair standard of teaching or which teachers matters subversive of the welfare of the scholars. It stands to reason, then, that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided. Learned Attorney-General concedes that reasonable regulations may certainly be imposed by the State as a condition for aid or even for recognition….” 18. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in C.Stephenson Rooba Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others C.Stephenson Rooba Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others C.Stephenson Rooba Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and others , 1993 Writ L.R. 544 At page 572, Srinivasan, J., speaking for the Bench, has held thus: “The qualifications required for the persons who handle the trainees in such institutions with a view to make them fit to become teachers, should be necessarily higher than the qualifications fixed for the teachers in the other institutions. As a matter of policy the government has fixed higher qualifications for meeting the standards of teacher training institutions. The action of the Government is well within the parameters of Art.30(l) of the Constitution.” 19. As a matter of policy the government has fixed higher qualifications for meeting the standards of teacher training institutions. The action of the Government is well within the parameters of Art.30(l) of the Constitution.” 19. Learned counsel for petitioner also brought to my notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Natarajan, P. v. N.Palanisamy etc. and five others Natarajan, P. v. N.Palanisamy etc. and five others Natarajan, P. v. N.Palanisamy etc. and five others , 1996 Writ.L.R. 434 wherein their Lordships have approved the view of the learned single Judge that essential qualifications are not liable to be relaxed. Learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Henry Gomez v. Government of Kerala , (1993)2 K.L.T. 883 which has also followed the same principle. 20. Since it is admitted that the seventh respondent is not having the requisite qualification, he is not eligible to be appointed as Headmaster of St.Parricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School. 21. Learned counsel for the seventh respondent submitted that as on this date, he has acquired necessary qualification. I do not think that the contention also could be considered as has been held in the decision reported in Dr.Prit Singh v. S.K.Mangal and others Dr.Prit Singh v. S.K.Mangal and others Dr.Prit Singh v. S.K.Mangal and others , (1993)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 714 and in Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and another , (1995)4 S.C.C. (Supp.) 706. In both these cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that if a person is not possessing the requisite qualification, any appointment to the post is illegal and any subsequent amendment to the required qualification will not make him eligible. 22. In the result, there will be a direction against respondents 2, 4 and 6 to set aside the appointment of the seventh respondent as Headmaster of St.Patricks Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, and the seventh respondent is also prohibited from discharging his functions as Headmaster forthwith. I declare that the appointment made by the sixth respondent, the seventh respondent as Headmaster of the School is illegal and void. The Writ Petition No. 13090 of 1997 is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 23. I declare that the appointment made by the sixth respondent, the seventh respondent as Headmaster of the School is illegal and void. The Writ Petition No. 13090 of 1997 is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 23. In the later writ petition, viz., W.P.No.2406 of-1998, one of the main contention raised is regarding the eligibility of the Headmaster to initiate disciplinary proceedings. It is said that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein is one without jurisdiction, and so long as the appointment of Headmaster is not approved, the disciplinary proceedings already initiated deserves to be quashed, and the entire enquiry also is without jurisdiction. The second show cause notice issued on the basis of the Enquiry Report is also one without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the 4th respondent was actuated by malice in initiating proceedings and it was he who is behind the disciplinary proceedings. Since it was he who initiated proceedings against him and to revoke his appointment, the disciplinary proceedings is liable to be struck down. 24. It is seen from the writ petition that the petitioner wanted the assistance of a lawyer and it was denied and thereafter he wanted production of certain documents to prove his innocence. He also wanted to examine some witnesses on his behalf. But the requests were declined. Documents were also refused to be produced by the Management even though fourth respondent is the custodian of the documents. The fact that the fourth respondent is not in good terms with the petitioner is proved by the affidavit of the fourth respondent himself filed in the connected writ petition. In the earlier writ petition, there is no necessity for the fourth respondent to give details of the disciplinary proceedings. In spite of that, he wants to raise those issues and also take a contention that the petitioner is behind the filing of the earlier writ petition. Proceedings before the Authority also will show that the fourth respondent was biased against the petitioner. I have already held in the connected writ petition that the fourth respondent is incompetent to act as Headmaster, and he is not qualified. If the fourth respondent is biased against the petitioner, that will be an added reason to quash the proceedings. Proceedings before the Authority also will show that the fourth respondent was biased against the petitioner. I have already held in the connected writ petition that the fourth respondent is incompetent to act as Headmaster, and he is not qualified. If the fourth respondent is biased against the petitioner, that will be an added reason to quash the proceedings. In the decision reported in Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others, (1995)1 S.C.C (Supp.) 21 in paragraph 4, it was held thus: (relevant portion is extracted): “…There is, however, a distinction between a defect in the enquiry and a lapse which almost destroys the enquiry. Where the lapse is of the enquiry being conducted by an officer deeply biased against the delinquent or one of them being so biased that the entire enquiry proceedings are rendered void, the appellate authority cannot repair the damage done to the enquiry. Where one of the members of the Enquiry Committee has a strong hatred or bias against the delinquent of which the other members know not or the said member is in a position to influence the decision-making, the entire record of the enquiry will be slanted and any independent decision taken by the appellate authority on such tainted record cannot undo the damage done. Besides where a delinquent is asked to appear before a committee of which one member is deeply hostile towards him, the delinquent would be greatly handicapped in conducting his defence as he would be inhibited by the atmosphere prevailing in the enquiry room. Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. Would it so appear to the delinquent if one of the members of the Enquiry Committee has a strong bias against hime And we repeat the bias must be strong and hostile and not a mere allegation of bias of a superior having rebuked him in the past or the like. Would it so appear to the delinquent if one of the members of the Enquiry Committee has a strong bias against hime And we repeat the bias must be strong and hostile and not a mere allegation of bias of a superior having rebuked him in the past or the like. Such is the view taken in a recent decision of this Court in Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr.Hari Ram (Co-educational) Higher Secondary School Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr.Hari Ram (Co-educational) Higher Secondary School Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr.Hari Ram (Co-educational) Higher Secondary School , (1993)4 S.C.C. 10 That was a case where the enquiry was alleged to be vitiated on account of violation of the rules of natural justice due to the presence of a person who was strongly biased against the delinquent. While dealing with this contention this Court observed: (S.C.C. p.22, para 12) “The learned single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the bias of Shri Maru Ram, one of the members of the enquiry committee, had percolated throughout the enquiry proceedings thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice and the findings made by the enquiry committee was a product of a bias and prejudiced mind. The illegality committed in conducting the departmental proceedings has left an indelible stamp of infirmity on decision of the Managing Committee since affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner.” In this view of the matter this Court concluded that the decision of the appellate authorities could not cure the initial defect in the constitution of the Enquiry Committee and the consequences following from one of the members of the Enquiry Committee being biased. In this view of the matter, this court had allowed the appeal.” 25. For the above reasons, I hold that the petitioner in W.P.No.2406 of 1998 is entitled to the relief sought for, and there will be a direction to the respondents therein to quash the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent. I hold that the second show cause notice is also without jurisdiction, and it also violates the principles of natural justice, in the sense that the fourth respondent is biased against the petitioner. The fourth respondent who claims to be the Correspondent is prohibited from continuing the proceedings on the basis of the show cause notice dated 24.1.1998. I hold that the second show cause notice is also without jurisdiction, and it also violates the principles of natural justice, in the sense that the fourth respondent is biased against the petitioner. The fourth respondent who claims to be the Correspondent is prohibited from continuing the proceedings on the basis of the show cause notice dated 24.1.1998. The writ petition, viz., W.P.No.2406 of 1998 is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 26. The pending W.M.Ps. in both the above writ petitions are closed.