ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 19.2.2003 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi whereby petitioners services have been terminated after holding a departmental enquiry. 2. Petitioners case, as stated in the writ petition, are as follows: Petitioners were appointed as teachers in 1979-80 in St. Aloysius Boys Middle School, Mander, Ranchi which is aided minority institution. In 2003 petitioners were put under suspension on certain charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them. After holding departmental inquiry the charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and, thereafter order of termination of the services of the petitioners was issued. It is stated by the petitioners that the enquiry officer had asked them to explain the charges in one sitting and they were not allowed to produce their witnesses nor they were allowed to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Management. It is further stated that copies of the enquiry report were not served upon the petitioners and final order of termination was passed. 3. The Management of the school filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating full facts of the case. It is stated that on 7.10.2002 the Headmaster of the school filed an application before the Secretary of the school stating that respondent No. 2, Dayamani Kujur who is wife of respondent No. 3, Nathanial Kujur stole away the attendance register of the teachers and took the same to her home and then respondent No. 3 entered his attendance in the attendance register from April to October, 2002 although during that period he was absent. Accordingly, vide letter dated 31.10.2002. the Secretary called for an explanation from petitioner No. 2 as to under whose permission she took away the attendance register to her home and petitioner No. 3 marked his presence in the said attendance register. A separate notice dated 10.12.2002 was also issued to petitioner No. 2 asking her to submit her explanation within 48 hours as to why she had failed to deposit the question papers selected by her for the purpose of conducting second semester examination. She was also called upon to submit all the result papers and answer sheets and other relevant documents. Thereafter, on various dates meetings of the Managing Committee of the school was held in which certain irregularities committed by petitioner No. 2 were discussed. She was also called upon to submit all the result papers and answer sheets and other relevant documents. Thereafter, on various dates meetings of the Managing Committee of the school was held in which certain irregularities committed by petitioner No. 2 were discussed. Petitioner No. 2 was again, by letter dated 27.12.2002, called upon to submit explanation about the gross misconduct committed by her. Petitioner No. 2 was then suspended by order dated 6.1.2003 and she was asked to file her show cause within 72 hours failing which disciplinary proceeding will be initiated against her. A departmental inquiry was conducted and the charges against petitioner No. 2 was found to be proved. Thereafter, she was served with enquiry report along with a show-cause notice for filing show cause as to why she be not dismissed from service. 4. Similarly on 10.12.2002 a notice was issued to petitioner No. 1 by the Secretary of the school whereby he was asked to file his explanation for non- submission of question papers for conducting second semester examination. Further he was again called upon by the Secretary to return back the answer sheets of the examination. Again on 14.12.2002 another notice was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to file explanation for committing misconduct. Another notice dated 9.1.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner No. 1 to show cause as to why a proceeding be not initiated for disobedience of the orders passed by the Secretary of the school. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.2.2003 a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioners against his proposed dismissal from service on the basis of the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer. Similarly petitioner No. 3 was also served with a notice to show cause and a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him for the charges levelled against him. It is further stated that on 20.12.2002 a meeting of the Headmaster with the Secretary of the school was held and different matters were discussed and a decision was taken that the teachers who were involved in committing irregularities, action be taken against them. The respondents have further stated that full fledged inquiry was conducted against the petitioners for certain charges levelled against them and full opportunity was given to them to defend their cases. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-School, namely, St. The respondents have further stated that full fledged inquiry was conducted against the petitioners for certain charges levelled against them and full opportunity was given to them to defend their cases. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-School, namely, St. Aloysious Boys Middle School, Mander, Ranchi is aided Minority School, run and managed by the Managing Committee through its Secretary. It is also not in dispute that appointment of teachers in the school are approved by the concerned District Superintendent of Education and their salary is paid after fixation of their pay and approval by the Director, Primary Education. 6. In the instant case, it appears that petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the alleged charges levelled against them. The Inquiry Officer appointed by the Management of the School held an inquiry jointly against all the petitioners and submitted inquiry report holding that charges appears to have been proved. On the basis of said Inquiry report, the Impugned dismissal orders were issued and along with the dismissal orders, copy of the inquiry report was annexed. In para 17 of the writ petition, it has been categorically stated by the petitioners that the impugned orders of termination are required to be approved by respondent No. 4, District Superintendent of Education and also by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Secretary and Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi but the said authorities were not even informed about the disciplinary action taken against them nor the order of termination was approved. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, namely, management of the school has not denied the averments. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, District Superintendent of Education, it has been clearly stated that no approval of order of termination was obtained by the Management of the School. 7. Besides the above, it also transpires from the counter-affidavit filed by the management of the school that order of termination is not mainly based on the report of the Inquiry Officer but also on the basis of decision taken in the meeting held on 20.12.2002 among the Senior Citizens and intelligentsia class with the Secretary and Headmaster of the school as stated by the respondents in para 22 of the counter-affidavit. Moreover, before issuing the dismissal order, copy of enquiry report was not served upon the petitioners, rather it was annexed along with the dismissal order. 8. Moreover, before issuing the dismissal order, copy of enquiry report was not served upon the petitioners, rather it was annexed along with the dismissal order. 8. Considering the facts of the case and discussions made above, I am of the opinion that impugned order of termination in such a situation cannot be sustained in law. 9. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders of termination are set aside. However, this will not prevent the Management of the school from proceeding against the petitioners afresh and in that case the Inquiry Officer shall hold fresh inquiry after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and submit an inquiry report and thereafter the Management of the school shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.