Judgment :- By consent of all the parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. 2. In W.P.No.35038 of 2002, the petitioner - Secondary Grade Teacher in the Inter Christian Mission Middle School, Koilpatti, seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to change the Enquiry Officer and entrust the same to somebody preferably to the Departmental Officials or other than the third respondent and conduct enquiry and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. In W.P.No.40282 of 2002, the very same petitioner challenges the order passed by the third respondent / Managing Trustee - Executive Director and Correspondent of the School dated 11.09.2002, in and by which the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the School for the proved misconduct. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent School on 10.07.1987 and his appointment was also approved. He was also awarded Selection Grade in 1997. While so, on 31.07.2002, based on the memo dated 02.07.2002, he was placed under suspension. He submitted his explanation to the said memo on 05.07.2002, denying the same. Another memo was also issued to him stating that he scolded the Headmaster and the Correspondent in a filthy language, for which he submitted an explanation on 06.08.2002, denying the charge. The Correspondent, directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry before him on 20.08.2002. Since the Correspondent himself is going to hold an enquiry, there will not be any fair and proper enquiry, because one of the charge is that he uttered filthy language against the Correspondent. In the interest of fair and free play, it is just and necessary to change the enquiry to some other person, except the Correspondent. In the other writ petition, it is stated that in spite of pendency of Writ Petition No.35038 of 2002, the third respondent ought to have deferred further action till the decision by this Court. However, the third respondent passed an order on 11.09.2002, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. Questioning the said notice dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner has filed the other writ petition 40282 of 2002. 4. However, the third respondent passed an order on 11.09.2002, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. Questioning the said notice dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner has filed the other writ petition 40282 of 2002. 4. The Correspondent of the second respondent School, who is third respondent in both the writ petitions has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.40282 of 2002, wherein it is stated that the School is a recognised minority aided Middle School. According to him, the proceedings dated 02.07.2002 came to be issued by the Headmaster as the petitioner had not submitted the notes of lessons on 01.07.2002 and also not completed the particulars in the attendance register. However, again on 02.07.2002, the petitioner had at 11.00 a.m. during interval and also later on the same day during the 7th period Class, indulged in abusing the Headmaster and the Correspondent in the presence of the students. Complaints dated 03.07.2002 from the watchman has been received in this behalf and the students of VII-A Section have also given in writing, the event that had happened. It is on a consideration of all the above that the petitioner came to be placed under suspension by proceedings of the Trust dated 22.07.2002. 5. By proceedings dated 12.08.2002, the petitioner was required to attend an enquiry into the charges against him to be held on 20.08.2002. Though the petitioner had requested the assistance of a lawyer, he was informed that he could pursue the complaint of the Watchman and the statement of the students in the presence of the Headmaster. By proceedings dated 21.08.2002, the copies of the complaint and the statements were forwarded to the petitioner and the adjourned date of enquiry, namely 28.08.2002 was also notified to the petitioner. On his request, due to ill-health, the enquiry was adjourned twice and finally the same was adjourned to 09.09.2002, the same has been notified to the petitioner on 31.08.2002. In that communication it was made clear that no further adjournment will be given. Again on 09.09.2002, the petitioner sent a telegram that the enquiry may be adjourned by 10 days. The request of the petitioner was declined and the enquiry was conducted on the same day at 4.30 p.m. The Headmaster was examined as the first witness and the Watchman Rajendran was examined as second witness. The students who gave statements were also examined. The request of the petitioner was declined and the enquiry was conducted on the same day at 4.30 p.m. The Headmaster was examined as the first witness and the Watchman Rajendran was examined as second witness. The students who gave statements were also examined. After arriving the conclusion that the charges were proved warranting punishment of removal from service, in order to maintain orderliness and discipline in the School, by letter dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner has been asked to show cause within a week against the proposed punishment. At this stage, the petitioner filed the above writ petitions and obtained interim stay. 6. Heard all the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as one of the charges relate to scolding the Headmaster and the Correspondent in a filthy language, he cannot be an Enquiry Officer to consider the very same charge. He also contended that in the show cause notice dated 11.09.2002, after accepting the enquiry report and after arriving a definite conclusion, that he will be dismissed from service, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply, which is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the second respondent School being a recognised minority aided Middle School, they are entitled to take disciplinary proceedings against the teachers and staff, including the petitioner. They also contended that after following the procedure, namely, issuance of notice, opportunity to submit explanation, enquiry etc., after accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, action is to be taken, for which the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, the same cannot be faulted with. 9. There is no dispute that the second respondent School is a recognised minority aided Middle School. It is also not disputed that they are entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the persons working under them. According to the petitioner, at the relevant time he was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher (Selection Grade). It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, a perusal of the same show that memo was issued by the Headmaster for certain alleged acts and for scolding the Headmaster as well as the Correspondent in a filthy and un-parlimented language. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, a perusal of the same show that memo was issued by the Headmaster for certain alleged acts and for scolding the Headmaster as well as the Correspondent in a filthy and un-parlimented language. It is further seen from the proceedings dated 2.7.2002, that the petitioner had not submitted the notes of lessons on 01.07.2002 and also not completed the particulars in the attendance register. It is further seen that action on the same day, according to the Management, the petitioner abused the Correspondent and the Headmaster in the presence of students. No doubt, the eqnuiry was conducted by the third respondent, who is none else than the Correspondent. Though the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Enquiry Officer - either one of the Educational Authorities or some third party, inasmuch as the disciplinary proceeding and control in respect of the teaching staff and others lies with the Management, I am of the view that the Correspondent is fully justified in enquiring the matter. Only thing that has to be considered is whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to put forth his case before the Enquiry Officer. 10. The particulars furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent show that the petitioner was given an opportunity to put forth his case and as a matter of fact at his request, the enquiry was adjourned on many occasion due to health ground. It is further seen that in spite of several adjournments, the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry on the adjourned date, namely 09.09.2002, though he had been informed even on 31.08.2002. On that date, the Headmaster and Watchman Rajendran were examined. It is also seen that some of the students, who gave statements were also examined. Based on the materials, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report holding that the charges were proved. Considering the report and in order to take a decision one way or other, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation, if any by the impugned notice dated 11.09.2002. Here again, the procedure followed and the proposed action cannot be faulted with. 11. Considering the report and in order to take a decision one way or other, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation, if any by the impugned notice dated 11.09.2002. Here again, the procedure followed and the proposed action cannot be faulted with. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the un-reported decision of E. Padmanabhan,J., dated 26.04.2000 in W.P.No.4549 of 2000 and another decision of mine (PSJ) dated 14.09.2000 in W.P.No.18141 of 1998 would contend that the show cause notice dated 11.09.2002, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the Management has pre-concluded the issue and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. After going through both the decisions, the factual details therein, I am satisfied that the same are not applicable to the case on hand. In both the decisions referred to above, the Court has considered the stand of the NLC as well as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, governing service of the petitioners therein. In our case, though the petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, after getting several adjournments for the reasons best known to him, he did not avail the same. Thereafter, based on the report, the Management decided to take action, particularly in order to maintain discipline in the School. No doubt, in the notice dated 11.09.2002, the Management has expressed their views, namely, that the petitioner is going to be dismissed, I am of the view that the petitioner can very well submit his objection with regard to the proposed action. A perusal of the said notice also discloses the charges levelled against the petitioner, explanation offered by him, options of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, materials placed, i.e., oral and documentary evidence on the side of the Management, ultimate report of the Enquiry Officer and the proposed action to be taken by the Management etc., As stated earlier, if the petitioner has valid defence, he can very well submit the same and it is the duty of the Management to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. Even if the ultimate order goes against him, the petitioner can very well ventilate his grievance before the appropriate Forum. In such a circumstance, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Even if the ultimate order goes against him, the petitioner can very well ventilate his grievance before the appropriate Forum. In such a circumstance, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. With regard to the contention that the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside, as the subsistence allowance has not been paid, in the counter affidavit of the Correspondent, particularly in para 15 it is stated that Rule 17 (2)(i) requires that when a Teacher in a private School is kept under suspension, such suspension shall immediately on the date of the order be intimated by the Secretary to the Department. It is explained that in this case proceedings dated 31.07.2002, referring the meeting of the Trust Board dated 27.07.2002 and placing the petitioner under suspension from 01.08.2002 have been communicated to the Authorities on the same day as would be evident from the proceedings dated 31.07.2002. It is the claim of the Management that under Rule 17(2)(ii), the Educational Authorities are to make payment of the subsistence allowance and it is necessary for the teacher to send an application to the District Educational Officer intimating that he has not employed elsewhere. In the same paragraph it further asserted that such an application has not been sent by the petitioner. In such a circumstance, I am unable to appreciate the said contention also. In the light of what is stated above, there is no merit in the writ petitions; consequently, the same are dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petitions, connected WPMPs., and WVMP., are also dismissed.