JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.— The appellant - management is running an education institution - St. Mary's Syrian (S.M.S.) College at Bahmavar, Udupi District, wherein, the respondent was serving as a lecturer in History, since about 1985. On 7.1.2006, the police had called the respondent to the police station, to inquire into a matter relating to the parking of certain old cars in front of his house. The local news papers had carried a news item about the involvement of the respondent in an alleged crime. The appellant exhibited a notice in the college notice board, about the respondent being directed to proceed on leave, taking into consideration a representation dated 13.1.2006 submitted by the student community. Respondent had filed O.S.168/2006 against the appellant, for defamation, which was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 14.2.2007. The appellant issued a notice to the respondent to show cause - imposition of penalty, dated 17.3.2007, alleging violation of Rule 47 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 ('Rules' for short). The respondent submitted a representation denying the accusation made against him and stating that the proposed penalty is unjust and illegal and that he has a lawful defence to make and requesting the appellant/management to make available the documents/particulars and to grant him a week's time for submitting his reply. The appellant without providing the copies of the documents requested by the respondent or rejecting the request nor granting time to file objections, passed a Resolution dated 20.4.2007, based on which, an order dated 21.4.2007 was issued, imposing on the respondent, the major penalty of removal from service. The said order was questioned by the respondent before the Educational Appellate Tribunal/District Court, Udupi District, ('Tribunal' for short) in EAT No. 1/2007, filed under Section 94 (1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short). After issue of notice to the respondent/management, considering the materials placed on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the tribunal by its order dated 9.10.2007, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of removal from service, directing the appellant/management to take the respondent/employee into service and pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments. After issue of notice to the respondent/management, considering the materials placed on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the tribunal by its order dated 9.10.2007, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of removal from service, directing the appellant/management to take the respondent/employee into service and pay the arrears of salary and other emoluments. The tribunal also granted liberty to the management, to proceed against the employee, in accordance with law as per Section 92 of the Act and Rule 38 of the Rules, if it finds, some misconduct on his part. Being allegedly aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed W.P.17116/2007. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the writ petition, having found the same to be devoid of merit, has rejected the writ petition, by passing the order dated 8.4.2008, impugning which, this appeal has been preferred. 2. We have heard Sri B.M. Baliga, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel contended that, the learned Single Judge ought to have held that Annexure-G, show cause notice, itself as the charge sheet, since it specified the charges made against the respondent. He contended that, the respondent having failed to clear himself of the charges levelled against him in Annexure-G, the major penalty of removal was imposed under Rule 32(ix) of the Rules, which action was legal. He contended that, the requirement under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 38 of the Rules, is only to give a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, to clear himself of the charges and the respondent having failed to make out a case for further inquiry into the charges levelled against him, there was no requirement of conducting an inquiry and hence the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition, holding that, the impugned order was not preceded by the issue of charge sheet and holding of an inquiry. He contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was impossible for the management to call for the witness and to hold a regular departmental inquiry. He contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was impossible for the management to call for the witness and to hold a regular departmental inquiry. He contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had made out a clear case for excluding the observance of the strict principles of natural justice, requiring a regular departmental inquiry and hence the learned Single Judge to the effect that, there is violation of principles of natural justice, is erroneous, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel and considering the record of the writ appeal, we do not find any merit in the contentions canvassed before us. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that the provisions of that Act and the Rules, do not apply to it. Section 92 of the Act stipulates that, no teacher or other employee of a private educational institution, shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, except in accordance with the conditions of service governing him, after an inquiry, in which, he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges and where it is proposed after such inquiry. Rule 38 of the Rules, stipulate the procedure for imposing of the major penalties. The nature of penalties that can be imposed have been enumerated in Rule 32 of the Rules. As per Rule 38, no order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 32, shall be made, except after an inquiry is held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in the rule. Detailed procedure has been stipulated under Rule 38, for imposing the major penalties. Thus it is clear that, a major penalty to be valid and effective, has to be preceded by an inquiry, conducted by the management against the delinquent employee, in the manner provided under the Act and the Rules and based on the evidence adduced during the course of inquiry and not otherwise. 6. Thus it is clear that, a major penalty to be valid and effective, has to be preceded by an inquiry, conducted by the management against the delinquent employee, in the manner provided under the Act and the Rules and based on the evidence adduced during the course of inquiry and not otherwise. 6. Facts which are not in dispute are that, the appellant issued notice of show cause - imposition of penalty dated 17.3.2007 to the respondent, in response to which, the respondent specifically stating that, the accusations made against him and proposed penalty, are unjust and illegal and that he has a lawful defence to make, requested the management to furnish copies of the documents/particulars, in order to enable him to effectively represent to the notice of show cause - imposition of penalty and grant him a week's time for submitting his reply. The appellant did not furnish to the respondent, the documents/particulars nor granted him the time to submit the representation. Thus it is clear that, the respondent did not admit the allegations levelled against him in the Annexure-G notice to show cause - imposition of penalty. Appellant passed the Resolution dated 20.4.2007, treating the request of the respondent dated 30.3.2007 itself as a reply and arriving at the conclusion that, the respondent has not denied through any piece of evidence, the allegations of misconduct alleged against him and that there was no clarification/explanation forthcoming from the respondent to the misconduct mentioned in the show cause notice and that the reply is without any substance/merit and to be evasive and thus resolved to impose upon the respondent, the proposed penalty. 7. Appellant has not informed the respondent of the charges against him and has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the specified charges and has not conducted the inquiry. Without either itself conducting inquiry or through an Inquiry Officer and without any evidence being adduced during the course of the inquiry, the appellant has passed the said Resolution, based on which, the order of removal dated 2.4.2007 was issued to the respondent. Without either itself conducting inquiry or through an Inquiry Officer and without any evidence being adduced during the course of the inquiry, the appellant has passed the said Resolution, based on which, the order of removal dated 2.4.2007 was issued to the respondent. In view of the prohibition contained under Sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Act, it was not permissible for the appellant to have imposed the penalty, except after the employee was informed of the allegations, on which, it had proposed to take action and after giving an opportunity to make the representation, which the employee may wish to make and after consideration of such representation only, action could have been taken. For imposing of the major penalty like removal from service, conducting of an inquiry stipulated under Section 92 of the Act by following the procedure stipulated under Rule 38 of the rules, unless the alleged misconduct was unequivocally admitted, is a sine-quo-non. Since Section 92 of the Act and Rule 38 of the Rules provide the manner in which action can be taken by the management of an education institution, against a teacher or employee, in case of any default, the disciplinary action can be taken in the way the statute has provided and in no ors. manner. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3558 wherein it has been held as follows: It is well-settled salutary principles that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no ors. manner. There is no dispute that the appellant/management has not taken the proceedings against the respondent in terms of the provisions contained under Section 92 of the Act by following the procedure stipulated under Rule 38 of the Rules, resulting in the violation of the said provisions, which has caused prejudice to the respondent. 8. manner. There is no dispute that the appellant/management has not taken the proceedings against the respondent in terms of the provisions contained under Section 92 of the Act by following the procedure stipulated under Rule 38 of the Rules, resulting in the violation of the said provisions, which has caused prejudice to the respondent. 8. The tribunal, in its order dated 9.10.2007, impugned in the writ petition, has noticed the fact of violation of the provisions contained under Section 92 of the Act and the procedure prescribed under Rule 38 of the Rules, by the appellant/management, resulting in the prejudicial action having been taken against the respondent, in violation of principles of natural justice, on account of the arbitrary and illegal acts by the management. Perusal of the notice to show cause at Annexure-G Indicates that it is not a charge sheet containing the articles of charges and imputations of misconduct. It does not contain the names and addresses of the witnesses or the particulars of the documents, on the basis of which, the alleged acts of misconduct was sought to be established by the appellant. Hence, the same cannot be construed as a charge sheet containing definite charges against the respondent. The management has acted illegally in construing the representation of the employee to the notice to show cause, itself as containing the admission of guilt. In the said representation, the employee has stated as follows: 1. I have carefully gone through the contents of your "Notice to show cause Imposition of Penalty" and I beg to state that I have a representation to be made to you in this regard. The accusations made against me and the proposed penalty are all unjust and illegal. I have a lawful defence to be made. 2. From the contents of the said Notice, I note that your unilateral decision to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry in the matter as contemplated under The Rules quoted in paragraph 14 of the Notice is influenced by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 168/06 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udupi. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 5. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 5. I require the certified copies of the said letters (cited in paragraph 4 above) and the certified copies of the documents/particulars if any furnished to the management by the Principal, in order to effectively represent to you in response to your Notice. 6. I therefore request you to kindly grant me the said document/particulars and to grant me a week's time (from the date of grant of copies) for submitting my representation. I hope you will be kind enough to condescend to my request. 9. From the above, it is clear that there was no admission of guilt by the employee, admitting the accusations levelled against him, in the notice to show cause - imposition of penalty. As such, it was totally wrong and illegal, on the part of the management to have concluded in its Resolution dated 20.4.2007 - Annexure -J, as follows: 1. No. clarification/explanation is forthcoming in him to the misconduct mentioned in the show cause notice. 2. He has not denied through any piece of evidence, the allegations of misconduct made against him. 3. His reply is without substance/merit and is evasive." Based on such wrongful and illegal Resolution, the appellant has imposed the major penalty of removal, which is arbitrary. 10. The Tribunal, on detailed consideration of all the material facts and circumstances, has rightly interfered with the totally illegal action of the appellant/management in removing the respondent from service, without the misconduct being specifically alleged, in the manner provided under law and in not establishing the charges in a duly held and conducted inquiry, by producing the evidence and thereafter action being taken, if any, based on such evidence. The appellant has not made out any acceptable grounds, either before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge, much less before us, for dispensation of the mandatory inquiry contemplated under Section 92 of the Act, being held against the respondent. The explanation sought to be offered by the appellant for not conducting the inquiry, is flimsy and is a lame excuse to over come its totally illegal action taken against the respondent. We are not satisfied that, there existed any grave circumstance, on account of which, the appellant could not conduct the statutory inquiry against the respondent. The explanation sought to be offered by the appellant for not conducting the inquiry, is flimsy and is a lame excuse to over come its totally illegal action taken against the respondent. We are not satisfied that, there existed any grave circumstance, on account of which, the appellant could not conduct the statutory inquiry against the respondent. Hence the plea that, the appellant had made out a clear case for excluding the observance of strict rules of natural justice requiring the departmental inquiry, is without any merit. 11. Learned Single Judge has considered the writ petition in accordance with law and having found the same to be devoid of merit, was justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ petition, thereby upholding the order passed by the Educational Appellate tribunal, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 12. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.