Honble MATHUR, J.–To assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 7.11.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), this petition for writ is preferred by the petitioners. The factual matrix, that is necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the cause involved, is as follows:- (2). The petitioner No.1 is a society (hereinafter referred to as "the society") registered under the Societies Registration Act, the petitioner No.2 is school (hereinafter referred to as "the school") run by the society, the petitioner No.3 is the President of the society and the petitioner No.4 is principal of the school run by the society and also Secretary of the society. Being a minority institution the petitioner society and the school is having protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. (3). The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the delinquent employee") while working as Teacher Gr.III at the school was served with a charge sheet dated 13.4.1999 alleging definite charges of misconduct as under:- "1) Charge No.1. You were absent from duty from 10th March99 to 19-3-99. On 20th March99 you were submitted false medical certificate, not only this left the station without permission/or information. This act of yours is a misconduct. 2) Charge No.2. On 20th March99 at 8.30 a.m. when Principal enquired about your absence instead of replying you flung the leave application at the Principal. When Principal advised you to behave properly you shouted and you used abusive words and threatened the Principal in the presence of clerical staff. This act of yours is a misbehaviour insubordination. 3) Charge No.3. On 23rd March, 99 when suspension order was given to you by the peon, after reading, you refused to accept the same and came to the office of the Principal and uttered loose words. This act of yours is misbehaviour." (4). An explanation submitted by the delinquent employee to the charges alleged was placed before the Managing Committee of the school on 24.4.1999 and the committee after considering it was of the view to hold an inquiry, accordingly, it was decided to request one Mrs. Snehlata Sharma, a retired Additional Director of Education, Government of Rajasthan to act as inquiry officer. An explanation submitted by the delinquent employee to the charges alleged was placed before the Managing Committee of the school on 24.4.1999 and the committee after considering it was of the view to hold an inquiry, accordingly, it was decided to request one Mrs. Snehlata Sharma, a retired Additional Director of Education, Government of Rajasthan to act as inquiry officer. Relevant to note here that petitioner No.4 Sister Febina, who placed and read the charge sheet before the Managing Committee being its Secretary, considered it not proper to participate in the proceedings of the Committee as the delinquent employee was charge-sheeted on basis of a report given by her being Principal of the school. (5). The request made on behalf of the petitioner No.1 to act as inquiry officer was accepted by Mrs. Snehlata Sharma and on 20.10.1999 she recorded statements of five prosecution witnesses viz. Sister Febina, Principal of the school (PW-1), Sister Celestine, Incharge, K.G.Section (PW-2), Shri Gulab Chand (PW-3), Shri Raju (PW-4) and Smt. Sushamma (PW- 5). Certain documents (Ex.P/1 to P/10) were also produced by the prosecution before the inquiry officer. Copies of the statements given by the prosecution witnesses and the documents referred above were supplied to the delinquent employee on 21.10.1999. No evidence was produced by the delinquent employee despite opportunity. The inquiry officer accordingly after hearing both the parties and considering the written arguments forwarded by them submitted her report to disciplinary authority on 19.12.1999 with finding of guilt for all the three charges. (6). Under a notice to show cause dated 10.1.2000 a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the delinquent employee seeking her comments/explanation for the findings given by the inquiry officer. In response to that the delinquent employee made a request to drop disciplinary action against her in following terms:- ^^vkidk izklafxd i= fnukad 17-1-2000 dks izkIr gqvkA ftlds lkFk tkap fjiksVZ dh QksVks dksih Hkh feyhA bl lEcU/k esa tkap fjiksVZ ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk esjk bruk gh fuosnu gS fd dksbZ kkfLr vf/kjksfir fd;s fcuk esjs fo:) ;g dk;Zokgh lgh lekIr dj nh tkosA eSa vkidh vkHkkjh jgwWxhA (7). The matter was again discussed and a resolution was taken to "terminate" the delinquent employee from service by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 17.2.2000. An order dated 19.2.2000 was accordingly passed by the Secretary of the society. The matter was again discussed and a resolution was taken to "terminate" the delinquent employee from service by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 17.2.2000. An order dated 19.2.2000 was accordingly passed by the Secretary of the society. Before proceeding further it shall be useful to mention that a disciplinary inquiry was also conducted against Mrs. Ruby Samuel who happens to be real sister of the delinquent employee and was also working as Teacher at the school. She too was subjected to the inquiry for the charge of remaining absent from duties unauthorisedly for the same period that of the present delinquent employee and also for extending a false reason to remain absent from duties. However, while considering her case for imposition of penalty a lenient view was taken and she was allowed to resume duties by forfetting her additional wages for the period of suspension. (8). Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2000 the delinquent employee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal inter-alia on the ground that before effecting termination no prior approval of the Director, Education was obtained as required by proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989"). The Tribunal by its order dated 19.11.2001 accepted the appeal by declaring the order dated 19.2.2000 void with a direction to reinstate the delinquent employee in service with all consequential benefits. The order aforesaid came to be set aside by Division Bench of this Court under its order dated 7.4.2003 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.601/2002 preferred by the present petitioners. The Division Bench while accepting the writ petition referred above directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the delinquent employee afresh in accordance with law without considering and ignoring the issue about absence of prior approval before making an order of dismissal/removal. On remission, the Tribunal re-heard the appeal and accepted the same by the order impugned. (9). The Tribunal after examining record of the inquiry and hearing the counsel for the parties held that no fact was available on record to establish absence of the delinquent employee without any reason or without prior information on 10.3.1999. With regard to allegation No.2 the Tribunal held that no evidence was available to establish that the leave application was flunged by the delinquent employee at the Principal. With regard to allegation No.2 the Tribunal held that no evidence was available to establish that the leave application was flunged by the delinquent employee at the Principal. The Tribunal also altered the finding of the inquiry officer with regard to charge No.3 by holding that no sufficient evidence was available to prove the same. (10). The Tribunal, apart from whatever stated above, also found the violation of principles of natural justice due to participation of the petitioner No.4 in the meetings of the Managing Committee that took decision for initiating disciplinary action against the delinquent employee and also to punish her. For the reasons above, learned Tribunal while accepting the appeal preferred by the delinquent employee ordered for her reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. (11). The first contention to challenge the order impugned advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal erred by applying the "Doctrine of Bias" in present set of facts to establish violation of principles of natural justice. It is urged that the question of bias is to be determined by examining real likelihood of bias and in the instant matter that could have been judged by examining the effect in decision making process due to presence of Sister Febina (petitioner No.4) in meeting of the Managing Committee. The Tribunal without doing so held violation of principles of natural justice only because of presence of the petitioner No.4 in the meeting concerned, that according to counsel for the petitioners was formal and necessary being Secretary of the Committee. She herself at the first instance refused to participate in any deliberations as the charges were framed at her instance. (12). On the other hand, it is straneously contended by Shri Manoj Bhandari, counsel for the delinquent employee that presence of the petitioner No.4 who not only issued charge sheet but also appeared before the inquiry officer as prosecution witness must have tilted balance of the Committee in favour of the employer and against the employee. A reliance is placed by him upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others [ 1969(2) SCC 262 ], wherein it was held that "the inclusion of the Acting Inspector General of Forest as a member of the Selection Board was improper as he was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. Even if he did not participate in the deliberations of the Committee when his name was considered, the fact that he was a member of the Selection Board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board, particularly when he participated in the deliberations when the names of his rivals were considered and was a party to the preparation of the list of candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Board there was a conflict between his interest and duty and it could not be believed that he could have been impartial." (13). Reliance is also placed upon the judgment given in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co- Education) Higher Secondary School and others [ (1993)4 SCC 10 ], wherein the Apex Court on basis of the facts of that case observed that "the learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the bias of Shri Maru Ram, one of the members of the inquiry committee had percolated throughout the inquiry proceeding thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice and the findings made by the inquiry committee was the product of a biased and prejudiced mind. The illegality committed in conducting the departmental proceedings has left an indelible stamp of infirmity on the decision of the Managing Committee since affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner." (14). I am having no doubt that essential and integral part of the principles of natural justice is that the decision should be made free from bias and should always be impartial. The concept of natural justice is a living and dynamic concept. Its application is always dependent to the facts and not to the pre- suppositions or assumptions. The bias is envisaged and a real likelihood where the decision maker is desirous of the specific result of the inquiry but it cannot be determined on basis of surmises or conjectures or by pre-supposition. The bias or prejudice cannot be accepted without getting satisfied about their real likelihood and the test to adjudge it is that what a reasonable man would believe and perceive in given facts about real likelihood of bias. (15). The bias or prejudice cannot be accepted without getting satisfied about their real likelihood and the test to adjudge it is that what a reasonable man would believe and perceive in given facts about real likelihood of bias. (15). Honble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Kraipak (supra) held that "it is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. We agree with the learned Attorney-General that a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct." (16). The Tribunal, in the present case, without examining real likelihood of bias, only for the reason that the petitioner No.4 issued charge sheet, deposed as prosecution witness and also participated in meeting of the Managing Committee, concluded for violation of principles of natural justice. The sole discussion made by the Tribunal in this regard is as follows:- ^^¼14½ bl izdkj ls] izkpk;Z }kjk lfpo] ,T;qdsku lkslk;Vh vkWQ lksfQ;k lhfu;j gkW;j lSd.Mjh Ldwy ds :i esa vkjksi i= nsus o tkWp dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku Lo;a dks lk{; esa mifLFkr gksdj lk{; nsus ds vk/kkj ij tks tkWp fjiksVZ rS;kj dh x;h gS ;g Hkh izkd`frd U;k; ds lqLFkkfir fl)kUr ds foijhr gS vkSj bl izdkj ls vihykfFkZ;k dk tks ¼layXud&,@16½ vknsk lsok lekfIr dk tkjh fd;k x;k gS ;g izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA (17). Learned Tribunal, while reaching at the conclusion as above, should have examined all facts of the case and real likelihood of the bias. In the present case, learned Tribunal while holding violation of principles of natural justice has not taken into consideration the facts and evidence available on record. I am also not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioners that participation of the petitioner No.4 in meeting of Managing Committee ipsedixit proves bias. The law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Kraipak (supra) as a matter of fact supports the case of the petitioners to the extent it prescribes tests for determining bias. I am also not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioners that participation of the petitioner No.4 in meeting of Managing Committee ipsedixit proves bias. The law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Kraipak (supra) as a matter of fact supports the case of the petitioners to the extent it prescribes tests for determining bias. It is true that in the aforesaid case Honble Supreme Court found existence of bias in peculiar facts and circumstances of that case but those are absent in the instant matter. In the case of A.K.Kraipak (supra) the Acting Inspector General of Forest of Jammu & Kashmir State who was a candidate for selection to the Indian Forest Service was a member of the Selection Board. The Acting Inspector General of Forest though did not sit in the Selection Board at the time when his name was considered but being a member of the Selection Board he was in position to effect the candidature of other aspirants with view to get himself selected for Indian Forest Services. On facts, the present matter is absolutely different with the case of A.K.Kraipak (supra). (18). Similarly, in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma (supra) one person was included and retained in the inquiry committee despite objection of the delinquent employee and that member of the inquiry committee became witness to prove one of the charges against the delinquent employee. The person against whom allegation of the bias was made actively participated in the inquiry proceedings to the extent of giving the report of inquiry. (19). In the instant matter the position on facts is entirely different. From examination of record it is apparent that the petitioner No.4 even at the time of deliberations for appointment of the inquiry officer excluded herself from participation in the proceedings as the charges were drawn at her instance. In the meeting aforesaid an independent inquiry officer was chosen to be appointed and that too a retired person of the rank of Additional Director, Education. There is no allegation that the inquiry officer was under the influence of petitioner No.1. The presence of petitioner No.1, in meeting of the Managing Committee where a decision was taken to penalise the delinquent employee was also formal as from minutes of the proceedings, no participation on her reveals. There is no allegation that the inquiry officer was under the influence of petitioner No.1. The presence of petitioner No.1, in meeting of the Managing Committee where a decision was taken to penalise the delinquent employee was also formal as from minutes of the proceedings, no participation on her reveals. The delinquent employee also during the process of entire disciplinary proceedings nowhere raised any objection about participation of the petitioner No.4 in the meeting of the Managing Committee or alleged bias against her. She also not laid down any factual foundation to establish bias due to presence of the petitioner No.4 even before the Tribunal. In such circumstances I am of the considered opinion that participation of the petitioner No.4 in the meeting of the Managing Committee was formal and that nowhere effected impartiality and objectivity of the Managing Committee, as such the allegation of bias is ill- founded. The finding given by learned Tribunal for violation of principles of natural justice on the count above is erroneous. (20). The second contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal further erred while reaching at the conclusion that there was violation of principles of natural justice as according to the provisions of the Act of 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder the petitioner No.4 being Principal of the school could have not worked as Secretary of the Managing Committee. I am of the view that even by accepting the legal position as said above, there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice as held by the Tribunal. The existence of a common Principal of the school and the Secretary of the society may be an irregularity or may be an illegality, but it in no case cause any prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee that may be held as violation of principles of natural justice. (21). The third contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the findings given by the Tribunal are perverse being based on absolute misreading and over-looking the evidence available on record. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioners that the findings are not specific and definite. (22). I have minutely examined the evidence available on record and thats appreciation by the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal preferred by the delinquent employee. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioners that the findings are not specific and definite. (22). I have minutely examined the evidence available on record and thats appreciation by the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal preferred by the delinquent employee. Before coming to discussion relating to that, a brief scenario of the facts giving rise to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in the present case is necessary. As stated in preceding paras, the delinquent employee and her sister were working with the school as teacher Gr.III and they availed a casual leave on 10.3.1999. The delinquent employee by a telegram sought extension of leave on medical grounds. According to the petitioners one Sister Celestine on 11.3.1999 visited house of the delinquent employee where she came to know that the delinquent employee was out of station. An inquiry was also made by the railway authorities wherein it was found that the delinquent employee was having a reservation to travel from Abu Road on 10.3.1999. On 20.3.1999 the delinquent employee reported at school before the petitioner No.4 but she according to the petitioners refused to accept the time table and also authority of the Principal. She also flunged a leave application at the Principal. In sequence to the facts above, according to the petitioners, the delinquent employee threatened the Principal by saying "who are you to ask me, I will answer you in the Court on Monday i.e. 22.3.1999". She also refused to accept the order of suspension on 23.3.1999 and uttered loose words. (23). To substantiate the charges, Principal of the school (petitioner No.4) appeared before the inquiry officer as a prosecution witness and narrated all the facts in chronological order. She was also cross examined by the defence counsel for the delinquent employee but she maintained whatever she stated in the chief. Sister Celestine appeared before the inquiry officer as Prosecution Witness-2 and stated that on 11.3.1999 she visited residence of the delinquent employee whereon it was informed to her that the delinquent employee was out of station with her family. She maintained whatever stated by her in statement in chief during the cross examination also. (24). Shri Gulab Chand and Shri Raju appeared before the inquiry officer as PW-3 and PW-4 and stated that they offered the letter of suspension to the delinquent employee but after reading the same she refused to accept that. She maintained whatever stated by her in statement in chief during the cross examination also. (24). Shri Gulab Chand and Shri Raju appeared before the inquiry officer as PW-3 and PW-4 and stated that they offered the letter of suspension to the delinquent employee but after reading the same she refused to accept that. Both the employees of the school maintained their statements in cross examination also. One Smt. Sushamma, a clerk working with the school appeared before the inquiry officer as PW-5 and made a statement that she heard the delinquent employee saying to the Principal that she hate her and she will see to the Principal in Court on Monday. She also maintained whatever she said in the chief during the cross examination also. (25). From proceedings of the inquiry it also appears that several opportunities were given to the delinquent employee to produce evidence in her defence but she failed to do so. At the request of the delinquent employee the inquiry officer was ready to record statement of a defence witness at a different station i.e. Abu Road but that opportunity too was not availed by the delinquent employee. The inquiry officer on basis of the evidence adduced before her submitted the report of the inquiry holding the delinquent employee guilty for all the charges. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the delinquent employee and she was asked to submit her explanation and comments, however, nothing was said in this regard by the delinquent employee. The Managing Committee in its meeting dated 17.2.2000 decided to terminate the delinquent employee from service. Accordingly, the order dated 19.2.2000 was passed. (26). Learned Tribunal altered the finding given by the inquiry officer with regard to charge No.1 on basis of the telegram dated 10.3.1999 whereby the delinquent employee sought extension of leave due to her illness. It is surprising that the learned Tribunal based its finding solely on the telegram, that as a matter of fact was not in dispute. The real question was as to whether extension of leave was sought for a genuine reason? From reading of the statements of Sister Celestine PW-2 and the document Ex.P/5 i.e. copy of the railway reservation chart, it is apparent that on the fateful day the delinquent employee was on travel. The real question was as to whether extension of leave was sought for a genuine reason? From reading of the statements of Sister Celestine PW-2 and the document Ex.P/5 i.e. copy of the railway reservation chart, it is apparent that on the fateful day the delinquent employee was on travel. Nothing was placed before the inquiry officer by the delinquent employee in her defence to prove that on 10.3.1999 and onwards she was under medical treatment due to illness. Learned Tribunal apparently over-looked the evidenced available on record, while altering the finding pertaining to allegation No.1. (27). Similarly, the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to the allegation No.2 is also not specific. On the contrary, the inquiry officer on basis of the statements given by Sister Febina (PW-1) and Smt. Sushamma (PW-5) gave a specific and definite finding that the delinquent employee misbehaved with the Principal, refused to accept her authority and also flunged leave application at her. (28). Similarly, the finding given by the inquiry officer with regard to the allegation No.3 was changed by the inquiry officer merely by saying that from the evidence available on record the allegation appears to have not been proved. As a matter of fact learned Tribunal failed to examine even the inquiry report, what to talk of the record of the inquiry. The inquiry officer thoroughly dealt with the statements given by PW-3 Shri Gulab Chand and PW-4 Shri Raju and reached at the conclusion that the letter of suspension was offered to the delinquent employee but she not only refused to accept the same after reading that but also uttered loose words for the Principal. (29). On basis of the record of the inquiry, I am convinced that the Tribunal over-looked the evidence available on record and altered the findings given by the inquiry officer. The Tribunal, while dealing with the cases of the disciplinary action, should always be very cautious and slow in interfering with the findings given by the inquiry officer and the decision taken by the disciplinary authority as the discipline in the educational institutions specially of the teachers is most significant. The teachers deserve for high respect, suitable salaries and perquisites, all protection to act fairly and fearlessly and at same time they should maintain high level of discipline. (30). The teachers deserve for high respect, suitable salaries and perquisites, all protection to act fairly and fearlessly and at same time they should maintain high level of discipline. (30). Before parting with the case, I also consider it relevant to note that during the course of hearing an offer was given to the delinquent employee by the petitioners to accept a compensation in a tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement to get the dispute settled without entering into merits of that, but the delinquent employee refused to accept the same. Be that as it may, on basis of the discussion made above, I am is of the view that the order impugned dated 7.11.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal being perverse deserves interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (31). Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 7.11.2003 passed by learned Tribunal is hereby quashed. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.2, under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, giving challenge to the order dated 19.2.2000, is dismissed. (32). No order to costs.