Judgment :- The petitioner is a P.G. Teacher in Tamil working in the first respondent School. He was appointed as a Tamil Pandit in the said School in the year 1992. When he sought for transfer to some other school, it transpires, the school informed him that the original certificates given by him were lost. On account of an apprehension that he may be terminated from service, he filed Civil Suit being O.S. No.244 of 2001 in the District Munsif Court, Trichy for an injunction against the School Management from passing any prejudicial order against him. The School Management, in turn, framed certain charges against the Teacher and an enquiry was held. However, the said enquiry, according to the petitioner, was only a farce and he was not given any reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Subsequently, on 05. 2001, he was suspended from service for a period of two months. On 15. 2001, he was issued a show cause notice stating as to why he should not be terminated from service. But without furnishing the enquiry report and without seeking for his defence against the findings, they sought to proceed against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.No.10019 of 2001 to quash the suspension order. 2. Notice was ordered in the writ petition and he also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. In the meanwhile, an additional charge memo dated 25. 2001 was given to him in which the eighth charge was framed and in respect of the said additional charge, no enquiry was conducted and he was also not paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Thereafter, the order dated 06. 2001 was passed by the first respondent terminating his services, that too, with retrospective effect from 05. 2001. It is the said order which is under challenge before this Court. 3. I have heard the arguments of Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Gopiraja, learned Government Advocate representing the second respondent and have perused the records. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any reasonable opportunity, the order of termination is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any reasonable opportunity, the order of termination is liable to be set aside. On the contrary, Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent School Management contended that the first respondent is a minority institution and they cannot tolerate any indiscipline on the part of a teacher. Therefore, the order is well within their powers. With reference to framing of the additional charge dated 25. 2001 and taking the same into account, passing a final order without conducting any enquiry, the learned counsel for the School Management did not have any answer. In fact, even though the stand of the first respondent Management was that a proper enquiry was conducted, a perusal of the enquiry proceedings produced by the School Management clearly shows that the so-called enquiry report dated 30.4.2001 was not based upon any material. In fact, the Enquiry Committee has given a questionnaire form to the petitioner for being filled up and according to them, the questionnaire form was not filled up and returned to the Committee and since he has not filled up the said questionnaire and since the petitioner has denied all the charges, it is for him to prove as to how the charges were false. Accepting the said report, the first respondent Correspondent issued the show cause notice giving his own reasons for the charge being proved. Even though in the show cause notice dated 15. 2001 the Correspondent has stated that the petitioner has failed to prove the charges in the enquiry, the enquiry report dated 30.4.2001 reveals that further action can be taken against the teacher. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the said enquiry does not even satisfy any minimum principles of natural justice and accordingly, any order of termination passed upon the said enquiry can only be a farce and does not confirm to any norms. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the said enquiry does not even satisfy any minimum principles of natural justice and accordingly, any order of termination passed upon the said enquiry can only be a farce and does not confirm to any norms. It is elementary principles of natural justice that before enquiry is held against the petitioner, it should be preceded by framing of charge and after calling for explanation, there must be an oral enquiry if the charges are either denied or there is no reply from the charge sheeted employee and in the oral enquiry, the evidence must be recorded in support of the charges by the School Management and the charge sheeted employee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine those persons, who have deposed against him and thereafter, the Teacher must be given an opportunity of producing defence witnesses, if any, and also to permit him to make a statement of defence. Upon those materials, the Enquiry Officer must clearly give a finding in respect of those charges and after giving a copy of the report and getting an explanation from the charge sheeted employee and then only, the School Management can pass an order and that order must be a speaking order. 6. Under these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed. The impugned order will stand set aside. As the impugned order is set aside only on technical grounds, the first respondent School Management is entitled to conduct an enquiry afresh in accordance with law. But, for the interregnum period, the Teacher is entitled for all the monetary benefits and his reinstatement will be subject to final decision taken by his employer. However, there will be no order as to costs.