Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the above appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22. 2004 made in W.P.No.5269 of 1996. 2. The parties are arrayed as per their rank in the writ petition. 3. 1. According to the petitioner, the first respondent School was originally managed by one A.Zainambu Beevi till 12. 1995. Thereafter, there was a dispute as to the succession to the post of Correspondent among her daughter A.Zubaida Begum and her son M.A.Ajmal Khan. The said Zubaida Begum compelled her to give false complaints against Ajmal Khan to the educational authorities. Later, she sent a representation to the Director of Elementary Education informing that the complaint was given by her under the compulsion of Zubaida Begum. 3. 2. Prejudiced by the act of the petitioner, Zubaida Begum prevented her from signing the attendance register since 1. 1996. After 1. 1996, the act of the Management preventing her to sign the attendance register was brought to the notice of the educational authorities. The District Educational Officer conducted an inspection on 2. 1996 and found merit in the grievance of the petitioner and thereafter, by proceedings dated 2. 1996 directed Zubaida Begum to allow the petitioner to join duty. 3. 3. Despite the above direction, the petitioner was not permitted to sign the attendance register. On the other hand, by proceedings dated 12. 1996, Zubaida Begum asked the petitioner to submit her explanation for absenting herself from duty from January to 12. 1996 without any prior intimation, otherwise disciplinary action would be initiated. 4. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 12. 1996 denying the charges. In her explanation dated 12. 1996, she submitted that she was attending the school regularly from 1. 1996 to 31. 1996, but she was prevented from signing the attendance by Zubaida Begum, by keeping the attendance register with her. The fact that she was attending the school and that her signature was erased and marked as absent in the attendance register, was also noticed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, when he conducted inspection and made his remarks in the visitors book on 2. 1996. On 2. The fact that she was attending the school and that her signature was erased and marked as absent in the attendance register, was also noticed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, when he conducted inspection and made his remarks in the visitors book on 2. 1996. On 2. 1996, since Zubaida Begum attended the school late, she had signed the attendance register and therefore, the statement that with the assistance of Ajmal Khan, she had signed the attendance register is not correct, as, on that day, Ajmal Khan was on casual leave. Further, the allegation that she was giving school records to Ajmal Khan was also denied. 3. 5. On receipt of the said explanation, Zubaida Begum, by impugned proceedings dated 23. 1996, holding that the petitioner had absented herself from duty from 1. 1996 to 22. 1996 and that she had failed to submit her explanation for her absence and for keeping her under suspension, which was also communicated to her through registered post, which reflects her carelessness towards duty, dismissed her from service with effect from 23. 1996. 3. 6. Hence the above writ petition on the main ground that the order of dismissal is mala fide, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice, as no proper charges were framed, no enquiry officer was appointed, no enquiry was conducted and there is total violation of principles of natural justice. 3. 7. The writ petition was resisted by the Management on the ground that even before the show cause notice dated 12. 1996 was issued, a Committee of teachers were appointed to go into the absence of the petitioner, who gave an opportunity to her to submit her explanation for her absence from 1. 1996 and 31. 1996 by issuing show cause notices dated 2. 1996 and 2. 1996, but the petitioner did not avail the same. 8. The learned single Judge, by order dated 22. 2004, accepting the case of the Management and overlooking the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 2. 1996, even though the same was admittedly not challenged by the Management in whatsoever manner, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned single Judge and the materials placed before us. 5. 1996, even though the same was admittedly not challenged by the Management in whatsoever manner, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned single Judge and the materials placed before us. 5. The learned counsel for the Management, even though invited our attention to the proceedings of the Committee of Teachers dated 2. 1996, 2. 1996 and 2. 1996 requiring the petitioner to give explanation for her absence, fairly concedes that the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 2. 1996 directing Zubaida Begum to allow the petitioner to join duty has not been challenged by the Management in whatsoever manner. 6. That apart, even though the proceedings relied upon by the Management would, at the best, be a preliminary enquiry, the same, by itself would not be a full fledged enquiry to go into the charges, based on which the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed. On the other hand, the fact remains that on receipt of the show cause notice dated 12. 1996, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation dated 12. 1996 referred to earlier. Except the impugned proceedings dated 23. 1996, no proceedings appointing any enquiry officer much less enquiry report was placed before the learned single Judge for consideration. 7. On perusal of the entire materials placed before us, it is obvious that the impugned order of dismissal suffers apparent on the face of the record for violation of principles of natural justice, as no enquiry officer was appointed, much less enquiry report was made available. Even the finding that the petitioner had not furnished any explanation, in our considered opinion, is totally unconnected in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 12. 1996 denying the allegations. 8. As already pointed out, once the educational authorities themselves have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been arbitrarily and illegally prevented from signing the register, which was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time, we are satisfied that the impugned order was passed mala fide, arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, we are unable to sustain the impugned order and agree with the learned single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.