B. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Institution is calling in question order dated 11-3-2005 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bijapur, in E. A. T. Appeal no. 3 of 2004. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this case as pleaded by the parties can be set out as under: respondent herein was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher and was working as such since 28-8-1995. On 29-4-2004 he tendered his resignation addressed to the Chairman of the petitioner-Institution to be effective from 28-7-2004. Subsequently on 7-6-2004, he addressed another letter to the Chairman withdrawing the said resignation letter. It is the case of the petitioner that since the resignation was voluntarily submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner-Institution did not entertain the subsequent letter of revocation of the resignation letter and therefore having regard to the resignation submitted, the petitioner-Institution accepted the same and relieved the petitioner by letter dated 16-7-2004. ( 3 ) THE respondent-employee preferred an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 challenging the order relieving him from the services. The petitioner herein took up a preliminary objection contending that the appeal was not maintainable as the action challenged before the Tribunal was not the one that fell under Section 94 (1) of the Education Act. It was contended before the Tribunal by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was not visited with any penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank and therefore appeal filed before the Educational Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE Educational Appellate Tribunal having considered the contention urged by the petitioner herein and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case has held that before the resignation submitted by the respondent was accepted by the Management, the employee had withdrawn the same on 7-6-2004. Therefore, the letter of resignation was not available for acceptance as on 16-7-2004 and hence the order relieving the respondent from service tantamount to removal of the respondent from service. Having regard to the findings thus recorded, the Tribunal has further proceeded to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of removal from service of the respondent-employee and has directed reinstatement with full benefits and back wages. Having regard to the findings thus recorded, the Tribunal has further proceeded to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of removal from service of the respondent-employee and has directed reinstatement with full benefits and back wages. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Balram Gupta v Union of India and Others has held that since the resignation of the employee was not accepted, relieving him of his duty was impermissible and illegal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the appeal presented before it was maintainable. It is his contention that Section 94 provides for an appeal against the major penalties like dismissal, removal and reduction in rank imposed against an employee. To maintain an appeal, it has to be established that there is a penalty imposed and that penalty can be characterised as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Elaborating this contention, he submits that the impugned action is not resorted to by way of penalty. It is only an order relieving the respondent-employee based on the resignation submitted by him and therefore the appeal was not maintainable. To support this contention, learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Shankarappa Sharanappa Gaure v the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bidar and Others. Drawing the attention of the Court to the observations made in Para 11, the learned Counsel contends that unless the orders of punishment passed in disciplinary proceedings are of the nature of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, no appeal shall lie before the Educational Appellate tribunal and that such orders which do not fall within the four corners of Section 94 (1) can be assailed by way of revision under Section 131 of the Education Act. Learned Counsel was further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal and Others v The presiding Officer and Others. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment to contend that an appeal can be maintained only if the employee is visited with either of the three major penalties of dismissal, removal or rejection in ranking. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment to contend that an appeal can be maintained only if the employee is visited with either of the three major penalties of dismissal, removal or rejection in ranking. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the impugned order is in the nature of removal of the petitioner from service and is therefore amenable to appeal under section 94 (1) of the Act. Placing reliance on the decision in Management of M. S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore v Dr. M. Somashekar, learned Counsel contends that all terminations not preceded by disciplinary enquiry are not necessarily terminations simpliciter. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the respective contentions of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: "whether the Educational Appellate Tribunal has committed any error apparent in holding that the appeal presented before it was maintainable and in passing the impugned order?" ( 8 ) SECTION 94 (1) of the Karnataka Education Act reads as under: "94 (1) Any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may within three months from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal". ( 9 ) THE facts as discussed above would reveal that the respondent had already revoked his resignation before it could be accepted. On the date when he was relieved from service, his resignation letter was not available for acceptance. If that be so, any order passed by the management forcing the petitioner out of service cannot but be characterised as penal in nature. Only because the order does not speak about the removal of the petitioner from service on account of any allegations made or upon holding an enquiry into any such allegations, it cannot be said that the order is an innocuous order which does not visit the respondent-employee with penal consequences. Therefore, in my considered view, the method adopted by the petitioner-Institution in forcing the respondent-employee out of the institution after he revoked his resignation does tantamount to removal of the services of the petitioner so as to fall within the ambit of Section 94 (1) and therefore the appeal presented before the Educational Appellate Tribunal was maintainable. Therefore, in my considered view, the method adopted by the petitioner-Institution in forcing the respondent-employee out of the institution after he revoked his resignation does tantamount to removal of the services of the petitioner so as to fall within the ambit of Section 94 (1) and therefore the appeal presented before the Educational Appellate Tribunal was maintainable. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Shankarappa Shafanappa Gaure's case, is not apposite to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the question that was involved there was in respect of an order of suspension passed by the Management pending disciplinary enquiry. In that context, observations were made by this Court. Therefore, the observations made therein are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts involved in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Principal, have no application whatsoever to the facts involved in the present case. The question that fell for consideration in that case was totally different. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the reliance placed by the respondent on the decision in management of M. S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital's case, has got some bearing on the fact situations of this case inasmuch as a division Bench of this Court while dealing with the action of the management terminating the services of the employee on the ground 'services no longer required' has observed that mere use of the terminology is not determinative of the nature of the order. All terminations, not preceded by disciplinary enquiry are not necessarily termination simpliciter. Any termination on the ground 'services no longer required' if on examination by the Tribunal were to be found to be defective in nature passed either to victimise the employee or as a disciplinary measure it would amount to dismissal or removal. In the instant case, though the order passed by the Management is only an order relieving the respondent from service what is to be seen is the context in which that order has come into existence. The petitioner could not have removed the respondent from service once the resignation was revoked. It is not the case of the petitioner that the employee was on probation and that the action initiated by it was a discharge simpliciter. The petitioner could not have removed the respondent from service once the resignation was revoked. It is not the case of the petitioner that the employee was on probation and that the action initiated by it was a discharge simpliciter. Therefore, it is inevitable to conclude that the action of the management in dispensing with the service of the respondent did amount to removal as a penal measure. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal is unexceptional and does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, I pass the following.- order the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .