H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. ( 2 ) THE employee as well as the educational institution are before this Court in these two writ petitions, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional district Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Tumkur, in MA (EAT) no. 1/90, dated 27-9-1994 and 21-3-1998 respectively. ( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 42940 of 1999, filed by the management/employer, they call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the educational Appellate Tribunal modifying the order passed by the disciplinary Authority of the educational institution. ( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6720 of 2000, the employee of the educational institution calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in partly allowing the appeal filed by him. ( 5 ) FACTS in detail need not be noticed by me. It is suffice to state that, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6720 of 2000 was working as a Workshop superintendent in the institution managed and controlled by the respondent-society. For the alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner while he was in its service, the Disciplinary authority of the respondent-institution had dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee has filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 8 (1) of the karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short ). ( 6 ) CONTESTING respondents had filed their objections denying the assertions and allegations made in the memorandum of appeal. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the preliminary issue with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held by the respondent-management. The tribunal by its detailed order dated 27-9-1994 has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the employer is not fair and proper and therefore, directs the employer to lead its evidence, if any, in support of its impugned order. But while saying so, the Tribunal very curiously has set aside the order passed by the respondent-management in dismissing the petitioner from service. But while saying so, the Tribunal very curiously has set aside the order passed by the respondent-management in dismissing the petitioner from service. The order made by the Tribunal on the preliminary issue reads as under:"the impugned order passed by the respondents on the basis of the domestic enquiry held without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to lead evidence". ( 7 ) ON the same day, the Tribunal frames the following issues for its consideration and decision. They are:"i. Whether the respondents prove that the domestic enquiry held by it against the appellant is in accordance with law and the same is sufficient by itself to pass the impugned order? ii. Whether the appellant proves that he has not committed any of the charges levelled against him and the enquiry held against him is vitiated? iii. What order?" ( 8 ) EVEN while framing the issues, in my opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error and mistake. They are, firstly, having held that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent-institution is not fair and proper, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to have framed once again the first issue for its consideration and decision. Nextly, in Service Law jurisprudence, it is unheard of an issue being framed, casting onus on the delinquent employee to prove that he is innocent and has riot committed certain acts of misconduct alleged against him by the management. The tribunal considers these wrong issues and comes to the conclusion that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service by the respondent-management is wholly arbitrary and illegal and therefore, modifies the order made by the Disciplinary Authority. The same reads as under. "order appeal allowed in part by setting aside the order in No. 1267 of 1989-90, dated 9-11-1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing of major penalty of dismissal of appellant from service of Sri siddaganga Education Society i. e. , Siddaganga Institute of technology, Tumkur and in its place the following shall be substituted: (a) The appellant is ordered to retire compulsorily with effect from the date of his superannuation; (b) By virtue of compulsory retirement, the appellant is entitled to all monetary benefits; (c) The appellant is entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rules from the date of suspension till he superannuated. But the appellant is not entitled to salary for the period from the date of suspension till the date of the superannuation". ( 9 ) THE only question that requires to be considered and decided by this court is whether the impugned orders are justiciable? to answer this simple issue, a glance at the pleadings is required and they are: petitioner is an employee of the respondent-institution. After initiating domestic enquiry for the alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner, the respondent-management had terminated his services. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee has filed an appeal. In that, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent-management is not fair and proper and therefore directs the management to lead its evidence in support of its order. Having come to that conclusion, the Tribunal could not have framed the first issue for its consideration and decision once over again. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, it is unheard of in Service Law Jurisprudence that the delinquent is asked to prove that he has not committed any acts of misconduct alleged against him by the employer. The onus is on the management to prove that the charge-sheeted officer has committed the acts of misconduct alleged against him in the charge-memo. By shifting the burden to prove the negative on the charge-sheeted employee, the Tribunal has committed the grave error. The issues are required to be framed by the Court when the material proposition of law or fact was affirmed by one party and denied by the other and those issues require to be confined to material facts, i. e. , the points on which the right decision of case depends. The issues to be framed by the court should be such that they sufficiently direct the attention of the parties to the main dispute that requires to be considered and decided by the Court. If wrong issues are framed, since it is the duty of the Court to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties, it may prevent a party from adducing the necessary evidence in support of his cause and defence. It is wrong to raise an issue which is not germane to the case for determination and decide the same with the scanty material pleaded in the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. It is wrong to raise an issue which is not germane to the case for determination and decide the same with the scanty material pleaded in the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal is based on wrong assumption of basic principles, in my view, has vitiated the entire proceedings. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the management does not lead any evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations made against the employee in the charge-memo issued. In fact, the petitioner adduces his evidence in support of his case. But, the Tribunal, depending on the evidence that was recorded in a domestic enquiry which is held by it as not fair and proper by its order dated 27-9-1994, still comes to the conclusion that the respondent-management has proved the alleged charges against the employee. The entire approach of the tribunal while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner/employee of the respondent-institution is contrary to the settled principles of Service Law jurisprudence. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained by this Court. ( 12 ) IN the result, the following: orderi. Writ petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. II. The impugned orders made by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in no. MA (EAT) No. 1/90, dated 27-9-1994 and 21-3-1998 respectively are set aside. III. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to redo the matter by refraining the issues and secondly, by providing an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence, if any, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from today. IV. The respondent-management is directed to co-operate with the tribunal in early disposal of the appeal filed by its employee. V. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .