Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J.: The writ appellant is a member of the staff of the first respondent’s school run by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (‘TELC’ in short), Education Board. A charge memo was issued on 17.8.1985 making certain allegations. He submitted his reply. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 13.1.1986, the appellant was informed that an enquiry proceedings dated 13.1.1986, the appellant was informed that an inquiry would be held in respect of those charges. In the ex parte enquiry the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, an order of dismissal was issued by TELC Board. The question arose whether the Board was the competent authority. The Director of School Education by his proceedings, dated 23.6.1986 clarified that since TELC has not been declared by the Government as ‘Corporate Body’, the Correspondent of the School is the competent authority to issue the order of dismissal. Pursuant to this, the third respondent by order dated 16.7.1986 directed the first respondent school to reinstate the appellant brought its to the notice of the Joint Director, Secondary Education, the Second respondent herein, who was the Appellate Authority. On 14.5.1991, the second respondent directed reinstatement of the appellant on the ground that the impugned order was not passed by the competent authority and to take suitable steps thereafter, if required. Against the order of reinstatement the first respondent- school fled W.P. No.12235 of 1991. This was disposed of by this Court by order dated 20.7.1992 with a direction to pass orders after providing opportunity to the appellant and the first respondent. By order dated 30.12.1992, the second respondent again passed an order of reinstatement. This was challenged by the first respondent herein. 2. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court on the rights of minority institutions came to the conclusion that there is no procedural irregularity in the order passed by the Board, and quashed the order of reinstatement. Against this, the present writ appeal has been filed. 3. (a) Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel referred to the proceedings of the Director of School Education in R.C.No. 324858/G/81, dated 23.6.1986, which shows that only the Correspondent of the first respondent- School is the competent person to take disciplinary action. The learned senior counsel also submitted that there was absolutely no informity in the order of reinstatement. 3. (a) Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel referred to the proceedings of the Director of School Education in R.C.No. 324858/G/81, dated 23.6.1986, which shows that only the Correspondent of the first respondent- School is the competent person to take disciplinary action. The learned senior counsel also submitted that there was absolutely no informity in the order of reinstatement. The learned senior counsel pointed out that even on merits the charges were not of a serious nature and some of them in fact, did not amount to serious misconduct and therefore, even on that score the punishment of termination is absolutely excessive. (b) The following judgments were referred to: (i) The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. J.Robinson Jacob, (1998)3 M.L.J. 595 (F.B.); (ii) A.Casmir v. Joint Director of Schools (Education-Higher Secondary), etc. and others, 1996 Writ L.R. 470; (iii) C.N.Lekha, Headmistress, St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Gudalur v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1998)1 M.L.J. 248 ; (iv) Manohar Harries Walters v. The Basel Mission Higher Education Centre, Dharwad, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2230; (v) Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1990 Ker. 356. 4. The learned Government Pleader, Mrs.Kokila Vani as well as Mr.P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would however, supported the order of the learned single Judge and that it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer are not correct and that, in fact the second respondent had nor found any error in the findings of the guilty by the enquiry officer. No other argument was advanced. 5. The impugned order dated 30.12.1992, reads thus: and it is translated as follows: “Madurai U.C. Hr. Secondary School is a Minority School, it is ran by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church people. But it is not coming under the corporate management of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and it is a single unit management. Hence, the order of termination, issued by the Chairman of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Education Board is contrary to the rules. Appointment of teacher and other powers are with in the purview of the correspondence of U.C. Sec. School, Madurai. So it is informed to the correspondent of U.C. Hr. Sec. School, Madurai to reinstate the terminated teacher Thiru M.Jospeph.” 6. The original charge memo was in the year 1985. Appointment of teacher and other powers are with in the purview of the correspondence of U.C. Sec. School, Madurai. So it is informed to the correspondent of U.C. Hr. Sec. School, Madurai to reinstate the terminated teacher Thiru M.Jospeph.” 6. The original charge memo was in the year 1985. On 27.2.1986, the TELC, Education Board, Madurai has passed the order dismissing the appellant from service with effect from 1.3.1986. This is communicated by the Correspondent on 28.2.1986 stating that after deep consideration the Board has passed orders of termination. To this, a letter dated 7.3.1982, has been issued by the District Educational Officer seeking the following clarifications as to whether the Education Department had given any power to the Education Board Chairman to take disciplinary proceedings and if so, to forward such copies. The reply is given by the correspondent that since the concerned school is a minority school, getting permission from the Education Department is out of the question. 7. On 23.6.1986, by the proceedings of the Director of School Education the following instruction is given: and it is translated as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADRAS-6. R.C.No.324858/G/81/ - DT. 23.6.1986. Sub: Secondary Education - Aided - U.C. Higher Secondary School Madurai - Thiru M. Joseph Inducted Teacher - Terminated from service - Madurai District Educational Officer - Proposals - Issuance of Instructions - Regarding. Ref: 1. Government Letter NO.118603/D1/84-5 Dated 14.11.85. 2. Government Letter No.840D1/86-2 Dated 9.5.1986. 3. Letter from the District Educational Office Madurai R.C.No.5090/A-86, dated 24.3.1986. ----- The letter from the Government cited in the 1st reference ordered that, it is unnecessary to declare the schools run by T.E.L.C. Management as "Corporate Body." Hence it is informed to the D.E.O, Madurai that the Competent person to take disciplinary action against a staff member teaching or non-teaching is the correspondent of that school only and not the Chairman, Education Board of T.E.L.C. B. GOPALAN Director of School Education True copy forwarded by order Sd/- Selection Grade Superintendent To The D.E.O.,Madurai Copy: The C.E.O., Madurai." 8. On 16.7.1986, the District Education Officer has addressed a letter stating that the competent person to take action against the member of the staff whether teaching or non-teaching is only the correspondent and reference is made to the above-mentioned proceedings dated 23.6.1986 and therefore, reinstatement is ordered. This order was passed on the appellant’s application dated 8.3.1986. On 16.7.1986, the District Education Officer has addressed a letter stating that the competent person to take action against the member of the staff whether teaching or non-teaching is only the correspondent and reference is made to the above-mentioned proceedings dated 23.6.1986 and therefore, reinstatement is ordered. This order was passed on the appellant’s application dated 8.3.1986. The correspondent of the respondent- school, sought for reconsideration of the aforesaid order after giving an opportunity to the Management. On 14.5.1999, the Joint Director again passed an order of reinstatement. Aggrieved by this, Writ Petition No.12235 of 1992 was filed and this order was quashed only on the ground of failure to observe the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the order impugned in the present proceedings has been issued. The crucial paragraph is already extracted above. Though it is safe to infer that the conclusion arrived at by the second respondent is based on the order dated 23.6.1986 that only the Correspondent is the competent person, no reference is made to that. On the other hand,very cryptic order is passed directing reinstatement, which has resulted in this prolonged litigation. The Court is now informed that the appellant has also retired pending proceedings before this Court. No purpose will be served by directing the competent authority to proceed afresh. The decisions cited also are not necessary for deciding this case. 9. Considering the passage of time, the fact that the appellant has since retired and the nature of charges, it is in the interest of justice to give a finality to the entire proceedings. If the charges are consolidated under the various heads it is found that, (i) Charge No.1, relates to obtaining medical leave by giving false reasons for 32 days. (ii) Charge No.2 to 6 relates to “not receiving salaries”. (iii) Charge No.7 to 12 relates to quarrel with office staff members and teaching staff members. (iv) Charge No.13 relates to false complaints to department officials. 10. The charges are not very grave and in fact the charge Nos.2 to 6 relating to non-receipt of salaries appears to be almost flimsy. However, in the proceedings mentioned above no decision has been given attacking the correctness of the enquiry findings. A balance has to be struck between the rival interests. 11. 10. The charges are not very grave and in fact the charge Nos.2 to 6 relating to non-receipt of salaries appears to be almost flimsy. However, in the proceedings mentioned above no decision has been given attacking the correctness of the enquiry findings. A balance has to be struck between the rival interests. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.12.1992 is modified to one of reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation, but with full pension computed on the basis of the full wages that would have been received by the appellant on the date of superannuation together with all the retirement benefits. While 50% of backwages shall be met by the management, pensionary benefits is the liability of the Government. 12. The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.