Judgment The appellant herein was working as a Secondary Grade School Teacher in the Bishop Corrie Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Chennai-1, represented by the 5th Respondent. The said School has been administered by the 4th Respondent and it is a partly aided by the Government. The 6th Respondent, the Head Master of the said School, on a complaint from the girl students of the said School, had issued a charge memo dated 211. 1995, alleging that the Appellant had misbehaved with a girl student and abused his profession and failed to maintain discipline in the Class Room. For the said charge memo, the Appellant had submitted an explanation, denying the allegations. As the Management was not convinced with the said explanation, the Appellant was placed under suspension and enquiry was ordered. The 7th Respondent was appointed as an Enquiry officer, who after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report, with a finding against the Appellant and thereafter the Appellant was duly terminated from service by order dated 23. 1996. 2. As against the dismissal of the Appellant by the Authority concerned, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the 2nd Respondent, who forwarded the same to the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the same, on merits. The 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority, ignoring the defence set up by the Management that as they are a minority Institution, the appeal provision itself would not be applicable to the said institution, allowed the said appeal and directed that the Appellant should be reinstated in service mainly on the ground that the enquiry was commenced in the absence of the delinquent and that the delinquent was not allowed to cross-examine the girl students separately. The 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority further relied upon the proposition that even though the Appellant was placed under suspension, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and the signatures of all the students in the earlier letter of complaint and the signatures in the enquiry proceedings were different. On the basis of the above said findings of the Appellate Authority/the 3rd Respondent, the Appellant herein issued a notice, stating that the 5th Respondent has not implemented the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 111. 1996. Thereafter, the Appellant filed earlier WP.No.10773 OF 1997 TO implement the order passed by the 3rd Respondent and to reinstate the Appellate in service, with attendant benefits. 1996. Thereafter, the Appellant filed earlier WP.No.10773 OF 1997 TO implement the order passed by the 3rd Respondent and to reinstate the Appellate in service, with attendant benefits. The said writ petition was vehemently contested by the management/the respondents 4 to 6, who took a stand that the Management Institution is a minority Institution and that the 3rd Respondent had no authority to even entertain the appeal nor pass an order, on merits and that even if any order is passed by the said Appellate authority, the same need not be implemented, as it is without jurisdiction. 3. The management/the respondents 4 to 6 not only contested the writ petition filed by the Appellant for implementation of the order of the 3rd Respondent, but also filed a separate writ petition in WP No. 5678 of 1998, challenging the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 111. 1996. It was brought to the notice of the Court below as well as this Court that the writ petition filed by the management in WP.No.5678 of 1998, challenging the order of the 3rd Respondent had been allowed, in other words, the direction of the Appellate Authority had been quashed. 4. In view of the facts that WP.No.5678 of 1998 had been allowed and that the order of the Appellate Authority/the 3rd Respondent had been set aside, WP.No.10773 of 1997 filed to implement the order passed by the 3rd Respondent became infructuous. Therefore, the Appellant had contended that in view of the subsequent development that in WP.No.5678 of 1998, the order of the 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority had been set aside, he had chosen to file the present Writ petition, challenging the very same order of dismissal dated 23. 1996. 5. The Appellant would challenge the validity of the dismissal order mainly on the grounds that the charges levelled against the Appellant were vague and that the enquiry was conducted in a prejudicial manner against the principles of natural justice. Apart from that, he had also raised a plea than even though the suspension period of the Appellant was continued beyond the period of two months, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and hence, the order of termination was illegal. 6. Apart from that, he had also raised a plea than even though the suspension period of the Appellant was continued beyond the period of two months, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and hence, the order of termination was illegal. 6. When the matter came up for final disposal, the learned single Judge has categorically held that on a closer scrutiny of the charge memo and the evidence let in, it could definitely not be construed that the charges were vague and that adequate opportunity had been given to the Appellant and that the cross-examination was done by the appellant. 7. As regards the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, the learned single Judge, relying on the judgment in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity and Others (1997) 2 SCC 534 : 1997-II-LLJ-640: (1998) 4 LLN 961, wherein it was held as under:- “…..In the circumstances, the is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross-examination…..” has categorically held that the disciplinary proceedings does not partake the character of criminal trial and that the procedures adopted in a criminal trial cannot be expected to be followed in such disciplinary proceedings. 8. The learned single Judge has ultimately come to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice had been complied with and that the report of enquiry officer is also based only on materials on record and the conclusions are not perverse and that as regards the non payment of subsistence, allowance, mere non-payment of the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension does not have the effect of vitiating the proceedings, ipso facto unless it is established that the delinquent is prejudiced by such non-compliance. Further, holding that the delinquent was not in any way hampered by the non-payment of the subsistence allowance, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the present Writ petition and also directed the Authority concerned for payment of balance of subsistence allowance, if not paid to the Appellant, within a period of three months from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, challenging the dismissal order, the Appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal. Even in this Writ Appeal also, the Appellant is not on any way able to establish that the charges were vague or the Appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, in accordance with law. 10. 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, challenging the dismissal order, the Appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal. Even in this Writ Appeal also, the Appellant is not on any way able to establish that the charges were vague or the Appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, in accordance with law. 10. We have carefully gone through the material facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge to interfere with, especially in a case where a complaint has been lodged against a School Teacher for misbehaving with girl student. The Enquiry Officer, who has been appointed, also submitted a report and it could not be in any way construed that the Appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine and conduct the case in the manner known to law. The Appellant was also not able to in any way assail the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of violation of principles of natural justice. Above all these things, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, keeping in view the nature of allegations, the punishment is also in commensurate with the alleged misdemeanor. Apart from this, even in regard to the allegation of nonpayment of subsistence allowance, the Appellant was not able to establish or satisfy this Court that the delinquent was prejudiced by the non-compliance. 11. It was also fully conceded by both parties that the delinquent had participated in the enquiry in person and he had been given opportunity to defend himself and therefore, this grounds of non-payment of subsistence allowance also could not be sustained. As both the grounds, which were raised by the Appellant both before the learned single Judge and in this Writ Appeal, could not be substantiated, we do not find any reason to interfere with order of the learned single Judge. Hence, this Writ Appeal, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.