Judgment Vijender Jain, J. 1. C.M. No. 923 of 2007 The application is allowed and eight days delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 924 of 2007 The application is allowed as prayed for. L.P.A. No. 224 of 2005 & C.M. No. 925 of 2007 The appellant is the Managing Committee of Khalsa High School, Khaira Majja, Tehsil and District Jalanadhar, who has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause X of the Letters Patent for assailing judgment dated 18.7.2007 of the learned Single Judge vide which CWP No. 12464 of 1991 filed by it for quashing order dated 14.6.1991 of the Presiding Officer, Schools Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as `the Schools Tribunal) has been dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the stay of the operation of the impugned judgment has also been sought. 2. Respondent No. 3-Ved Parkash Chopra joined the services of the appellant as Maths Master on 7.7.1967. He submitted his resignation and was accordingly relieved from his duties on 18.2.1972. He again joined the services of the appellant on 26.8.1974. He absented from duty with effect from 5.11.1981 without the permission of the Head Master and without informing any one. His first application for grant of leave without pay up to 31.3.1982 on the ground of tension was handed over in the office of the appellant on 17.11.1981 by his wife after amending its date from 19.10.1981 to 19.11.1981. No leave application for the period from 5.11.1981 to 18.11.1981 was sent by respondent No. 3, but the appellant granted him leave without pay as he was entitled to the same for the period from 19.11.1981 to 31.3.1982. The next application for leave was received for the period from 1.4.1982 to 30.9.1982 by registered post on the same plea of tension. It was also accepted. The third application for leave without pay for the period from 1.10.1982 to 31.3.1983 was again received by registered post on 4.10.1982, but the signature of respondent No. 3 appeared to be forged and hence, the same was rejected and he was sent a communication vide registered post on 20.10.1982 asking him to resume his duties immediately. The said letter was received back undelivered. Again, a notice was sent on 24.12.1982 at his home address by registered post asking him to join his duties. The said notice was also received back undelivered. The said letter was received back undelivered. Again, a notice was sent on 24.12.1982 at his home address by registered post asking him to join his duties. The said notice was also received back undelivered. Thereafter, the appellant got a notice published in Daily Jagbani, a leading newspaper in Punjabi, on 1.4.1983 directing respondent No. 3 to join duty by 15.4.1983. Further applications from respondent No. 3 for extension of leave from 1.4.1983 to 30.6.1983 and 1.7.1983 to 31.8.1983 were again received by registered post, but there was no address on the same. 3. Thereafter, the appellant constituted an Action Committee by passing a resolution on 7.9.1983, who summoned respondent No. 3 and confronted him with the letters which had been dispatched on 19.11.1981, 25.3.1982 and 27.9.1982. 4. Respondent No. 3 confessed before the Action Committee that he had gone to foreign country to take up another employment during the period involved. He was questioned as to whether he had taken written permission of the appropriate authority before going abroad for employment to which the reply was in the negative. Simultaneously, he prayed for grant of time to file a detailed reply after consulting his lawyer and also to give the entire statement depicting the full particulars of the passport and employment in the foreign country. Thereafter, he defaulted in appearance before the Action Committee which passed an order holding respondent No. 3 to be guilty on the following counts, which are extracted from order dated 16.9.1983 :- "(a) He went to the Foreign Country to take up another employment and that too without obtaining permission from the appropriate authority before leaving the country; (b) he did not take any cognizance of our notice published in the newspaper, namely, Jagbani on 1.4.1983 nor he has taken the delivery of all the registered letters of the Institution; and (c) he had been absenting himself without leave since 1.10.1982 deliberately and at his own accord." On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Action Committee, the appellant, after seeking approval from the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, terminated the services of respondent No. 3 vide order dated 4.5.1988. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Schools Tribunal, challenging the orders of the Director and the appellant. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Schools Tribunal, challenging the orders of the Director and the appellant. By an order dated 14.6.1991, the Schools Tribunal accepted the appeal on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for short `the Act) and the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter described as `the Rules), which was mandatory, had not been followed. However, the appellant was given liberty to proceed afresh to enquire into the conduct of respondent No. 3. 5. The appellant sought the quashing of the order of the Schools Tribunal by filing the aforementioned writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. 6. Making a grievance of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, who held that the principles of natural justice stood violated in the instant case, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no dispute regarding the facts and that the opening line of the impugned judgment also notices this fact. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Action Committee on undisputed facts could not be faulted with and the appellant was not obliged to keep a delinquent employee in its fold. It was further contended that on an earlier occasion also, respondent No. 3 had resigned from service and started running an industry, but managed to get employment on 26.8.1974 by concealing these facts and subsequently, he went abroad without seeking permission of the authorities and without informing them which was a gross misconduct and when the Action Committee was formed to look into the allegations against him, he made a confession and thereafter, defaulted in appearance leaving no other option with the appellant, but to pass an order terminating his services. In this view of the matter, it was sought to be contended that there could hardly be any ambiguity about the right of the appellant to terminate the services of a delinquent employee whose misconduct stood established by his own confession. 7. Respondent No. 3 was on a caveat and was heard in extenso. In this view of the matter, it was sought to be contended that there could hardly be any ambiguity about the right of the appellant to terminate the services of a delinquent employee whose misconduct stood established by his own confession. 7. Respondent No. 3 was on a caveat and was heard in extenso. It was contended by his learned counsel that serious prejudice had been caused to him as the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules had not been followed and the Schools Tribunal was absolutely right in setting aside the order terminating his services on the ground of procedural irregularities. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record which reveals that there was no dispute regarding the facts which is also noticed by the learned Single Judge. Respondent No. 3, on an earlier occasion, had managed to get the employment by concealing the factum of his running an industry and thereafter, during the period from 24.9.1975 to 5.10.1975 went aboard without intimation to the appellant or without seeking the permission of the appropriate authority. Again, he absented from duty from 5.11.1981 onwards and went to foreign country and the applications for leave were being submitted by his wife from his residence and ultimately, his prayer for leave was declined. An Action Committee was formed by the appellant to look into the matter before which respondent No. 3 made a confession, but defaulted thereafter and did not put in appearance. Once respondent No. 3 confessed to his misdemeanour, there was hardly any room left for any other procedure to be followed. No doubt, the rule of audi alteram partem is a valuable right, but if the procedure followed shows substantial compliance of the said rule and the delinquent himself admits to his guilt, then in that eventuality, the following of procedure as envisaged and contemplated under the Act and the Rules amounts to paying a lip service to such provisions. Respondent No. 3 never seriously disputed the facts before any forum. Even, the Schools Tribunal noticed that the facts were correct, but held that the appellant ought to have adopted the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 9. Respondent No. 3 never seriously disputed the facts before any forum. Even, the Schools Tribunal noticed that the facts were correct, but held that the appellant ought to have adopted the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 9. We feel that once the facts are admitted and the misdemeanour is recorded by way of confession, there was little that the appellant could do even if it had resorted to the procedure of holding enquiry which in any case, was done by the Action Committee, even though the same may seem to be a poor substitute for the enquiry. 10. Even at the time of hearing of the appeal, we had put a pointed question to respondent No. 3 as to whether he had sought the permission of the appellant or whether he had intimated his visit abroad, to them, but the learned counsel appearing for him was evasive and did not give a direct reply to the question. She, however, admitted that respondent No. 3 had gone abroad. For the reasons recorded above and especially when the matter had been looked into by a Committee before whom respondent No. 3 had made a confession, we deem it appropriate to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. Ordered accordingly. As a consequence, the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order of the Schools Tribunal is quashed. Appeal allowed.