L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been appointed as night Watchman in S. R. K. R. Engineering College, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, hereinafter referred to as College on 13-06-1987, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 300. 00. Thereafter he was placed in regular scale of pay. The petitioner referred to certain events of his being prevented from discharging the duties and approaching various authorities etc. The subject matter of the writ petition, however, is validity of the order, dated 10-08-1997 and as affirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings, dated 13-08-1999. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was issued a Charge Memo, alleging certain acts of misconduct relating to the production of false Certificate. The petitioner does not appear to have submitted any explanation to the said charge memo. However, the enquiring authority, comprising of three members of the management of the respondent college was constituted before which the petitioner appeared and on coming to a conclusion, the Enquiry Committee submitted a report, holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. The Managing Committee of the College has accepted the said report and ordered for removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of A. P. Education Act, 1982. Several contentions were raised before it. One important aspect that was raised before the Appellate Authority was, that the respondent College did not obtain the prior approval as contemplated under Section 79 of the A. P. Education Act, before issuing order of termination. The 2nd respondent, did feel that there was a lapse on the part of the college in not obtaining prior approval as required under Section 79 of A. P. Education Act. However, the 2nd respondent thought it fit to accord approval in the order passed by him in the appeal, preferred by the petitioner and thereby dismissed the appeal. Hence the writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI P. R. K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged several points before this Court, while challenging the order of removal as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. He submits that the very constitution of the Enquiring Authority was contrary to the rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 467, dated 03-11-1983. ( 3 ) SRI P. R. K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged several points before this Court, while challenging the order of removal as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. He submits that the very constitution of the Enquiring Authority was contrary to the rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 467, dated 03-11-1983. His second submission is that the petitioner was not issued a show-cause notice as contemplated under Rule 7 (2) of the said rules, before inflicting the punishment. The third and the principal contention of the learned counsel is that the respondent-college did not obtain prior approval of the competent authority, as required under Section 79 of the A. P. Education Act. ( 4 ) SRI C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the respondent-college, on the other hand submits that the constitution of the Enquiry Authority was strictly in accordance with the rules. As regards the issuance of second show-cause notice and the approval of the competent authority, he submits that these two steps are only formal in nature and are framed with a view to ensure that there is a proper compliance with the procedure during the course of enquiry, and inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has found that the entire procedure was followed, no exception can be taken to the orders challenged in the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE important question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether the respondent-college was entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner without obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority under Section 79 of the A. P. Education Act, hereinafter referred to as Act. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent-college did not obtain prior approval of the competent authority. It cannot be said that the requirement under proviso of Section 79 (1) is without any purpose. The provision was enacted with a view to protect the rights of the employees in the private educational institutions. It ensures the proper verification and examination of the matter by the Authority under the Act, before the order imposing the punishment is given effect to. Such an important step cannot be said to be only directory in nature. Both, having regard to the language of the provision, as well as the purpose which is sought to be served through it, non-compliance with the same would render the proceedings in-operative. Such an important step cannot be said to be only directory in nature. Both, having regard to the language of the provision, as well as the purpose which is sought to be served through it, non-compliance with the same would render the proceedings in-operative. ( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent, did find that the college did not obtain prior approval before passing the order of termination. However, it had adopted a curious method. On being satisfied, that it was the Appellate Authority as well as the competent authority, it has chosen to accord approval and thereby rectified the fatal defect. Such course of action is absolutely impermissible under the Act, as well as the rules framed thereunder. The order of termination, which was otherwise defective and illegal, cannot be made legal simply because the petitioner has chosen to avail the remedy of appeal. The function of an Appellate Authority is to see, whether the order under appeal suffers from any illegality. By no stretch of imagination, the Appellate Authority can be said to have been conferred with the power to cure the defects. In fact, such a course of action is an anti-thesis to the very powers of an Appellate Authority. A Division Bench of this Court in tagore HOME JUNIOR COLLEGE, SECUNDERABAD v. P. P. A. CHRISTIAN AND OTHERS 1 held that any order, imposing punishment by a management of a private educational institution, without obtaining approval of the competent authority under Section 79, is illegal and inoperative. Therefore, the order, terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside. In view of the fact, that the order itself is set aside, it is not felt necessary to deal with the other contentions. ( 7 ) THE order, dated 10-08-1997, removing the petitioner from service is set aside. However, it shall be open to the college to approach the competent authority, to seek approval for the action it proposes to take against the petitioner. Having regard to the various stages, the proceedings have undergone, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the competent authority, bringing to its notice, various questions of facts and the law. ( 8 ) IF the competent authority accords approval, the management of the college shall issue a show-cause notice as contemplated under Rule 7 (2) of the rules, to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. ( 8 ) IF the competent authority accords approval, the management of the college shall issue a show-cause notice as contemplated under Rule 7 (2) of the rules, to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. The competent authority shall pass appropriate orders, on the matter of grant of approval, within a period of one month, from the date of the college approaches the competent authority, with a request for grant of approval. ( 9 ) THE petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from today and he shall be entitled to be paid subsistence allowance. In case, the competent authority does not accord any approval, the petitioner shall be entitled to for the wages from the date of removal from the service, subject to further verification, as to whether he has been gainfully employed for any particular time. ( 10 ) WITH the above observation, the writ petition is allowed.