VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE management of Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth Kundgol has preferred the above revision petition against the order of the educational appellate Tribunal Dharwad directing reinstatement of the first respondent to a post from which she was removed by the order dated 28. 7. 1989 and also to pay ail arrears of salary taking the period from the date of termination up till now as on duty. ( 2 ) IT is stated that the petitioner institution is a trust running severalinstitutions including the second respondent. The first respondent was appointed on temporary as Assistant Teacher on 26. 7. 1980. But her conduct was not good and she was always a quarrelsome lady and never co-operated with the school authorities. Several complaints were made against her about the discharge of her duties. Despite warning as there was no improvement in her approach to the problem, a show cause notice was issued calling upon her to improve her service and conduct. The probation period was extended by six more months. Several memos given regarding her conduct and in fact the Asst. Educational Officer wrote to the petitioner to take action against her for misconduct. Finally by a resolution dated 20. 7. 1989 the management decided to terminate the services at the end of the extended period. The termination order was issued on 28. 7. 1989. Thereafter one V. L Bhajantri is working. The terminated teacher, the first respondent questioned the termination by approaching the Tribunal. He also filed another appeal in MAET 6/ 89 for direction to hand over the charge of the Head Master to her, after the DDPI being given direction to the management to hand over possession. Before the Tribunal the respondent examined herself as PW. 1 and relied upon Exs. P. 1 to P. 4. Respondent examined RWs. 1 to 4 and filed 34 documents Exs. D. 1 to D. 32. The Tribunal has set aside the order. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that the Approach of the Tribunal is wrong; thatthe termination has taken place because of the non-confirmation of the probation period. Therefore, it is not a discharge, empowering the Tribunal to direct reinstatement. The provisions of the Kamataka private Educational Institutions (Disciplinary and Control) Act 1975 is not attracted as it was only the contract between the master and senvant. Therefore, it is not a discharge, empowering the Tribunal to direct reinstatement. The provisions of the Kamataka private Educational Institutions (Disciplinary and Control) Act 1975 is not attracted as it was only the contract between the master and senvant. In view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 1981 (1) KLJ 559, such contract is terminable during the period of probation. The impugned order will affect the subsequent appointees as well. This, it is assailed. ( 4 ) THE respondent submitted that without any show cause notice,the first respondent was dismissed from service and this order is ante-dated order. It was received by her on 2-8-1989. The charges levelled against her are as follows: 1) That the respondent refused to sign a report of the Asst. Education Officer and that on 12-8-87; 2) That the respondent insulted the said officer on 17-11-1987; 3) When the respondent was shown a report of the Asst. Education Officer, the respondent is alleged to have stated that it does not concern her and this is stated to have been made on 10-3-1988; 4) The Asst. Education Officer, Kundagol opined that the respondent was not fit to work as a teacher and that on 2-4- 1988; 5) During the year 1988-89 respondent collected the fee and extra fee and misappropriated; 6) Respondent and her husband committed goondagiri on the Head Master on 27-7-1988; 7) Respondent insulted the members of the management on 7-6-1988; 8) Respondent failed to conduct the examinations for 1st, 2nd and 3rd term in spite of her having been told; 8a) The annual report was not prepared and the signature of the Head Master was not taken by the respondent; 8b) The question paper had not been properly prepared; 9) When an employee Smt. Chandrakala Sulake was suspended, respondent insisted and threatened the management to continue her services; 10) Respondent had been warned in respect of a signature having been made by the respondent in the Attendance Register; 11) Respondent having taken Casual Leave on 17th and 18th august 1988 had signed the Attendance Register; 12) Respondent had not cooperated with the other teachers and had behaved unreasonably with other teachers. " ( 5 ) IT was further contended that Rule 6 (1) has been violated andreliance was placed upon the dictum in THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs DHARAM SINGH saying without conducting enquiry she cannot be: terminated. " ( 5 ) IT was further contended that Rule 6 (1) has been violated andreliance was placed upon the dictum in THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs DHARAM SINGH saying without conducting enquiry she cannot be: terminated. Under Rule 7 the period of probation is only one year and can be extended by one year six months and not beyond that. ( 6 ) IN reply the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatin the case in State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh a Bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court has held that the period of probation cannot go beyond the maximum period fixed, but on the basis of the rules it can be deemed to have been extended. ( 7 ) THE distinction made by seven Judges Bench of the Supremecourt referred to above has to be kept in mind in deciding the issues involved in this case. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner every time the probation period is extended. After giving a warning to mend her behaviour. Therefore such extension is permissible in law and under the Rules. There has been no objection by the petitioner for such extension. In fact, even in the charges it is mentioned "your probation period was extended from 31-1-1989 for a further period of six months as you are working as teacher is not up to the satisfaction. " But in spite of the extension of six months period you have not improved in your work. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the submissions made, I am of the viewthat the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. ( 9 ) EX. P. 34 is the appointment order under which the firstrespondent was appointed as temporary teacher. Ex. D. 28 is the copy of the memo issued to the first respondent extending her probation period up to 1-8-1982 warning her to mend her behaviour. Ex. D. 27 is another memo dated 30-7-1982 further extending her probationary period for a further period up to 1-8-1984. Ex. P. 26 is another memo issued to the first respondent dated 31-12-1987 extending the probation period up to 30-1-1989 and also warning her to mend her behaviour. Ex. P. 2 another memo dated 30-1-1989 discloses that the probationary period of the first respondent was further extended for six more months i. e. , up to 31-7-1989. Ex. P. 26 is another memo issued to the first respondent dated 31-12-1987 extending the probation period up to 30-1-1989 and also warning her to mend her behaviour. Ex. P. 2 another memo dated 30-1-1989 discloses that the probationary period of the first respondent was further extended for six more months i. e. , up to 31-7-1989. Therefore, it is seen that the probation period of the first respondent was being extended from time to time. The Tribunal also finds that no doubt, a probationer is liable to be discharged during or at the end of the probationary period if he is found unsuitable. But the order of discharge of a probationer should be preceded by an enquiry regarding his suitability for the post. Without such enquiry the discharge is bad. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was placed upon in PARTAP SINGH vs UNIONTERRITORY, CHANDIGARH, KRISHNA MURTHY vs UNION OF india and A. N. DHINGRA vs UNION OF INDIA to contend that only on the completion of probation period, the probationer cannot be deemed to be automatically confirmed in absence of express order of confirmation, the probation is presumed to be extended, this proposition of law is seen and accepted by the Tribunal as well. The Tribunal also considered the dictum in T. C. M. PILLAI vs technology INSTITUTE, GUINDY, to hold that the suitability of the employee does not depend upon the excellence or proficiency in work. Many factors enter into consideration and a particular attitude or tendency displayed by an employee can well influence the decision of the confirming authority while judging his suitability or fitness for confirmation. ( 11 ) THE Tribunal however found that the management has enlistedas many as 34 charges, some of which are also criminal in nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the management has passed an order of termination simpliciter of the services of the first respondent. Reliance was placed upon Grant-in-aid Code especially Rule 46 (c) proviso (e ). The Tribunal held in JALAJAKSHI vs BESANT national HIGH SCHOOL that the proviso of the Grant-in-aid code are only administrative instructions and no suit can lie either for enforcing or non-enforcing of those provisions. It is also confirmed in the ruling in RAMASWAMY IYENGAR vs D. P. I. inasmuch as this point has been rightly construed by the Tribunal, the finding is confirmed. It is also confirmed in the ruling in RAMASWAMY IYENGAR vs D. P. I. inasmuch as this point has been rightly construed by the Tribunal, the finding is confirmed. ( 12 ) THE dictum of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA vsp. S. BHATT has been relied upon to show that even if the conduct of the respondent in indulging in loose talks and filthy and abusive language be considered to be the motive of the indecent factors which influenced the authorities to pass the impugned order, that order cannot be said by way of punishment and that order is still an order of termination simpliciter. Taking into consideration the above decision, I find that the dismissal cannot be disturbed by the tribunal. ( 13 ) THE fact that probation has been extended for six months togive a chance to mend her ways has not taken advantage of by the teacher. It cannot be said that the management was very harsh. On the other hand, if they really wanted to terminate within the period of probation, they could have done so without giving a chance to the teacher to mend her ways. When a chance is given to the teacher to mend her ways, it only shows that the management is interested only in maintaining the discipline of the school. In educational institution discipline is most important and if a Guru is not able to act properly we cannot expect the disciple to be upright who are going to be the citizens of the country in future and preserve the discipline and dignity of this country in the days to come. ( 14 ) IN this view, I only feel that the leniency shown on the teacherby the management to correct her ways of action so trial she can prove to be a good teacher to the people has not been taken advantage of. The teacher is at fault and such a conduct on her line of action cannot be taken advantage of by her to avoid the order of termination. ( 15 ) WHEN an issue is raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunalshould consider the same in the light of the decision and ruling available on the point. The approach made by the Tribunal is tangent. ( 15 ) WHEN an issue is raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunalshould consider the same in the light of the decision and ruling available on the point. The approach made by the Tribunal is tangent. The settled law is that during the probation period or extended period, it is the right of the management to have a say in the matter as to whether they can discharge the employee or tney must confirm. So long as the discharge or termination simpliciter is not attached with any stigma such a right on the part of the management cannot be questioned by the employee. ( 16 ) IN this view, the revision petition is allowed and the impugnedorder is set aside. --- *** --- .