ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2-3-1999, PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE IN CRP NO. 3917 OF 1997. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS APPOINTED AS PRINCIPAL OF RESPONDENT 1 COLLEGE. ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AND MISCONDUCT THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENTS CONSTITUTED AN ENQUIRY COMMITTEE TO ENQUIRE INTO THE ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE COLLEGE FUNDS BY THE APPELLANT. A CHARGE-SHEET CONTAINING EIGHT CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 28-1-1988. THE APPELLANT GAVE A DETAILED REPLY DENYING THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. IN HIS REPLY, HE OBJECTED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE AND HE SOUGHT FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY COMMITTEE WITH A GOVERNMENT NOMINEE, IN THE BACKGROUND THAT HE HAD COMPLAINED AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE. THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE WITHOUT HEEDING TO THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT, AFTER HOLDING ENQUIRY, SUBMITTED A REPORT THAT THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST HIM WERE PROVED. THEREAFTER, THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT PASSED THE ORDER OF TERMINATION, TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT. THEY SOUGHT FOR APPROVAL OF THE TERMINATION FROM RESPONDENT 2. RESPONDENT 2 INFORMED THE MANAGEMENT THAT ITS ACTION OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANT FROM SERVICES COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR WANT OF PRIOR APPROVAL IN TERMS OF RULE 8 OF THE KARNATAKA GRANT-IN-AID CODE RULES (FOR SHORT "THE RULES"). TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME THE MANAGEMENT WITHDREW THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 1-12-1988 ON 29-12-1988. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT RESPONDENT 2 GAVE APPROVAL FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT BUT IT IS ALLEGED THAT APPROVAL ORDER WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE). THE MANAGING A COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, TERMINATED THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT AGAIN ON 11-4-1989. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL) ACT, 1975. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE APPELLANT GIVING HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS TIME THE MANAGEMENT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY FILING A REVISION PETITION. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE APPELLANT GIVING HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS TIME THE MANAGEMENT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY FILING A REVISION PETITION. THE HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS AND LOOKING TO THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, ALLOWED THE REVISION PETITION AND REVERSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL. 2. SHRI RANJIT KUMAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL URGED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PATENTLY UNSUSTAINABLE FOR REASONS MORE THAN ONE. HE CONTENDED THAT THE VERY CONSTITUTION OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE BY RESPONDENT 1 MANAGEMENT, WAS BAD IN LAW; IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO APPOINT AN IMPARTIAL COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF THE MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT BIASED, WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL TAKEN NOTE OF, THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE MANAGEMENT PROCEEDED TO HOLD ENQUIRY IN WHICH FAIR AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SO-CALLED APPROVAL SAID TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY RESPONDENT 2 WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIOR APPROVAL, ORDER OF TERMINATION PASSED FOR THE SECOND TIME ON 11-4-1989 WAS ALSO BAD AND COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE E TRIBUNAL WAS WELL JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASONS RECORDED THEREIN; THE HIGH COURT EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN REVISION WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN DISTURBING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED AND THE ULTIMATE ORDER PASSED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT, WERE VITIATED FOR THE REASON THAT THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTITUTION OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE AND HOLDING ENQUIRY HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT AND RULES 17(12) AND (13). 3. IN OPPOSITION, MR V.A. MOHTA, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 1 MADE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 SUBMITTED THAT G HAVING REGARD TO THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, THE HIGH COURT HAS PASSED APPROPRIATE ORDER. 3. IN OPPOSITION, MR V.A. MOHTA, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 1 MADE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 SUBMITTED THAT G HAVING REGARD TO THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, THE HIGH COURT HAS PASSED APPROPRIATE ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE AND THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED THEREAFTER, PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT MADE AT THE EARLIEST WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE, WAS NOT PROPER. IN OUR OPINION, THE EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION. THE H ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, IN OUR OPINION, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THE ORDINARY COURSE THIS COURT WOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESERVED LIBERTY TO THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO HOLD FRESH ENQUIRY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BUT AT THIS LENGTH OF TIME AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AS EARLY AS IN THE YEAR 1987, AND ALSO TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUPERANNUATED, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT SUCH A COURSE. 5. AT THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE SUPERANNUATED ON 31-1-1999, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE. ON INSTRUCTIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT SHALL GIVE UP ALL BACK WAGES RIGHT FROM THE DATE OF HIS SUSPENSION TILL HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION AND HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL MAY BE CONVERTED INTO ONE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITHOUT AFFECTING HIS PENSION AND OTHER RETIRAL BENEFITS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 1 SUBMITTED THAT APPROPRIATE ORDERS MAY BE PASSED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SO WAS THE STAND OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. IN THIS VIEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE CONVERT THE DISMISSAL ORDER TO ONE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PENSION, IF IT IS A PENSIONABLE POST, AND HE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF SUSPENSION TILL THE DATE OF HIS SUPERANNUATION. IN THIS VIEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE CONVERT THE DISMISSAL ORDER TO ONE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PENSION, IF IT IS A PENSIONABLE POST, AND HE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF SUSPENSION TILL THE DATE OF HIS SUPERANNUATION. HOWEVER, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CONTINUITY OF SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING PENSION AND ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING THE BENEFIT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT, GRATUITY AND PROVIDENT FUND, IF ANY. 7. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENSION IS TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS THE RESPONDENT COLLEGE IS AN AIDED INSTITUTION. THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING PENSION AND OTHER DUES SHALL BE SETTLED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE COPY OF THIS ORDER. 8. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THE ABOVE TERMS. NO COSTS.