Judgment :- 1. This writ appeal is by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11994/2006, being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition on 29.5.2008 whereunder, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition ,but in part. 2. Writ petitioner is a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is managing several educational institutions starting from Primary Schools, High Schools, Pre-University Colleges, Industrial Training Institutes etc., 3. Sri Phalahara Shivayogishwara Samyuktha Padavi Poorva College, Manihal-Sureban, Ramdurga Taluk, Belgaum District, is one such educational institution imparting education to students in Pre-University Course. 4. 5th respondent in this appeal also the 5th respondent in the writ petition was working as a Principal at this institution had been promoted to this post in the year 1992. 5. against this employee, the Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issue of a charge memo on 29.10.2004. This charge memo had been replied by the employee on 25.11.2004 and the management, being not satisfied with the same, appointed an enquiry committee on 14.3.2006, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 31.5.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-T to the writ petition). 6. against this employee, the Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings by issue of a charge memo on 29.10.2004. This charge memo had been replied by the employee on 25.11.2004 and the management, being not satisfied with the same, appointed an enquiry committee on 14.3.2006, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 31.5.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-T to the writ petition). 6. This order imposing the penalty of reducing the rank of the employee from Principal to the lower rank of a Lecturer and had asked the employee to function as a Lecturer thereafter, having been annulled by the State Government at the instance of the employee that is, the Principal of the College, with the State Government purporting to exercise its power under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act (for short ‘the Act’) not only for quashing the order imposing the penalty on the employee, but also for issuing further directions to the management to reinstate the appellant in the post of Principal with immediate effect and to remit to the Government certain amounts said to have been misappropriated which, the Directorate of Pre-University Education, had found the management had misappropriated and to further the recover from a Karnataka lecturer of the institution a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-said to have been illegally drawn by him and to remit it to the account of the Government as per its order dated 21.8.2006, (copy produced as Annexure-2) to the writ petition and the order indicating that, if the management should fail to comply with the directions issued by the Government within a week’s time thereafter, the Department of Pre-University Education may consider initiation of action against the institution as per Rule 12A or 12B of the Grant-in-Aid Code, the same gave cause for the appellant to come up to this Court presenting Writ Petition No.11994/2006. 7. 7. The learned Single Judge, who examined the writ petition, was of the view of that the petitioner-management had acted in a preemptive manner in totally disregarding certain interim directions issued by the Government and also proceeding with the enquiry notwithstanding the same being stayed by the Government and also proceeding with the enquiry notwithstanding the same being stayed by the Government at the instance of the employee in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 131 of the Act and therefore, the management could not have gone on with the enquiry nor could have passed the final order dated 31.5.2006 imposing penalty on the employee and this part of the order passed by the Government did not call for any interference as the State Government was quite justified in passing such an order, but the other part of the order issuing further directions to the management regarding remittance of the so-called misappropriated amount and wrongful disbursement of certain amounts to lecturer in Karnataka being not part of any proceedings before the Government in the petition of the employee under Section 131 of the Act, was not sustainable and therefore, quashed this part of the order containing directions to the management and in this view of the matter, allowed the writ petition in part. The Writ petition was ordered in the following terms: “i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to declaring the inquiry proceedings as null and void and directing reinstatement of 5th respondent as Principal in the petitioner’s college remains intact and undisturbed. iii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to directing to remit the misappropriated amount and wrongful disbursement of certain amount to lecturer in Kannada, to the Government account is hereby quashed. iv) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner institution to proceed against eh 5th respondent by constitution a fresh inquiry committee in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules, if they so desire. v) The matter is remitted to the respondent-Government insofar as it relates to recovery of misappropriated amount and wrongful disbursement of certain amount to lecturer in Kannada and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity to all the concerned. vi) Petitioner is hereby directed to reinstate the 5th respondent as Principal in their pre-university college forthwith. v) The matter is remitted to the respondent-Government insofar as it relates to recovery of misappropriated amount and wrongful disbursement of certain amount to lecturer in Kannada and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity to all the concerned. vi) Petitioner is hereby directed to reinstate the 5th respondent as Principal in their pre-university college forthwith. The 5th respondent is not entitled for backwages for the period from 13.9.2006 till the reinstatement. Ordered accordingly. 8. The management, being not satisfied with the limited relief granted in the writ petition and complaining that the orders passed by the Government at all stages and even the final order dated 21.8.2006 was one lacking in jurisdiction; that the State Government had no competence to either stay the enquiry proceedings initiated by the private management for to act as an appellate authority to annul the order passed by the management imposing penalty on its employee; that the State Government in fact could not have interfered with an enquiry proceeding even while exercising its power of revision under Section 131 of the Act, but in the present instance, the State Government, purporting to exercise powers under Section 131 to exercise appellate powers is beyond the powers of the State Government conferred under the Act; that it is one bereft of jurisdiction and the orders are passed even without adequate opportunity to the petitioner-appellant and the orders are also vitiated by the main fide manner in which the power is exercised by the State Government; that the 2nd respondent, the Minister of the state Government for Primary Education was instrumental in passing of such orders by the State Government and as such, the orders are all hit by mala fide exerciser of power and as such, the impugned order should have been quashed in its entirety and not in part as is done by the learned Single Judge and on such premise, has preferred the present appeal. 9. This writ appeal had been dismissed for default in terms of the order dated 21-4-2009 and the appellant had filed an application for recalling this order. 9. This writ appeal had been dismissed for default in terms of the order dated 21-4-2009 and the appellant had filed an application for recalling this order. The application had come up before this Court for orders on 26.5.2009 and after hearing Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.A.Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-employee, the application had come to be ordered on terms imposing cost of Rs.20,000/-on the appellant to be paid to 5th respondent by or before 5th of June, 2009, and that the appellant, not having filed a compliance report before the Registry, matter was listed for orders on 5.6.2009 regarding non-payment of the cost. 10. Sri P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the appellant has, subsequent to the passing of the order on 26.5.2009, paid the cost to the client by way of Demand Draft and therefore, that part of the direction is complied with and the appeal itself may be taken up for disposal. 11. Sri P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant agreeing for this, we have taken up the appeal for hearing and disposal. 12. Sri Rajagopal would submit that, while the order passed by the State Government is one totally lacking jurisdiction and is non est in law being not only beyond its powers and jurisdiction conferred under Section 131 of the Act, with the State Government having virtually usurped the powers conferred on an Educational Appellant Tribunal, who has the appellate jurisdiction to examine orders of the nature passed by the appellant on 21.8.2006 imposing penalty of reduction in the rank of the 5th respondent, the order of the State Government impugned in the writ petition was not tenable and deserved to be quashed in its entirety, but the learned Single Judge having sustained that order in part on mistaken facts recorded in the order and on a total misconception of statutory provisions and the powers of the State Government under the provisions of the Act and the scope of powers conferred on the State Government under the provisions of the Act, not only the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside, but the order passed by the State Government is also required to be quashed in its entirety. 13. 13. Elaborating the submission, Sri Rajagopal would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed a mistake of presuming certain factual position not found on record, bit by merely accepting the version of the 5th respondent employee and totally ignoring the version of the writ petitioner appellant. 14. 13. Elaborating the submission, Sri Rajagopal would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed a mistake of presuming certain factual position not found on record, bit by merely accepting the version of the 5th respondent employee and totally ignoring the version of the writ petitioner appellant. 14. Submission of Sri Rajagopal is that the so-called stay order grated by the State Government purporting to be on the representation of the employee made on 4.5.2006 treating it as a petition under Section 131 of the Act and that it was communicated to the appellant by RPAD, is incorrect and that the order was not made known to the management and even the so called direction issued earlier by the Commissioner, Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore directing the management to constitute a Committee in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and control) Rules, 1978 was not one tenable in law for the simple reason that the said rule itself was not in vogue and the Commissioner could not have exercised any power invoking a non-existent rule and issue directions for the purpose of management conforming to this rule and therefore, the management had ignored the direction and by the time the stay order said to have been issued by the Government on 16.5.2006 staying further proceedings in the enquiry came to be passed, the management had already completed its enquiry on 13.5.2006 and the so called stay order staying further proceedings in the enquiry is of no consequence either in law or on facts and with the employee being absent consecutively both on 8.5.2006 and 13.5.2006 to which dates, the enquiry was fixed, though the employee was present on the earlier date of enquiry prior to 8.5.2006 and did know the next date of hearing and with the enquiry committee having submitted its report on 24.5.2006 and the authorities finalizing the report on 27.5.2006 and with the management passing a resolution to accept the recommendation of the disciplinary authority and imposing the punishment on the employee as per the order dated 31.5.2006 and such order having not been challenged in a manner provided for under the Act and with the orders passed by the State Government whether on 7.4.2006 to direct the management to reconstitute the committee or on 16.5.2006 to stay the further proceedings in the enquiry or even the ultimate order dated 21.8.2006 setting aside the punishment imposed on the employee and issuing further directions, being all non est in law and being void for want of jurisdiction, have no bearing on the order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the management imposing a penalty on its employee and this order continues to remain in force even as on date, unless it is got over in a manner known to law and therefore, prays for not only quashing of the Government order dated 21.8.2006, but also for clarifying the legal position with regard to exerciser of powers by the State Government under the provisions of the Act. 15. It is also pointed out that the State Government was unable to produce any record even before the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding a specific direction for production of record to indicate that either the State Government had caused dispatch of all its orders addressed to the appellant-management or that the Government had in its possession or record any acknowledgment of the receipt of the orders by the management. 16. Insofar as the initial direction is concerned , Mr.Rajagopal has brought to our notice the provisions of the Act particularly, Section 146 relating to repeal and savings and submits that when the direction was issued by the Commissioner calling upon the management to conform to the requirements of Rule 17(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, the Rules was no more in vogue with the said rules having been replaced by the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules, 1999 and the relevant rule governing the enquiry and the procedure for imposing major penalty being Rule 21 and this rule not contemplating the constitution of the committee in the manner directed by the Commissioner, the direction itself is non est in law and is of no consequence on the further proceedings in the enquiry. 17. With regard to the so called stay order dated 16.5.2006 staying the further proceedings in the enquiry. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the State Government, even while exercising revisional powers, cannot and does not have the power to stay any enquiry proceedings instituted by a private management against its employee and an order of this nature, at any rate, could not have been passed ex-parte without hearing the management even when an earlier notice had indicated that a subsequent date of hearing has been fixed etc., 18. With regard to the ultimate order dated 21.8.2006 which is the subject of the writ petition which was sought to be quashed, Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel would submit that the State Government, though purports to exercise its appellate powers, the only appellate power the State Government, if at all has, it is to be found in Section 130 of the Act and by exercising its appellate powers, the State Government could not have interfered with an order of this nature as, orders imposing penalty on an employee by the management can only be subject matter of appeal under Section 94 of the Act and lies only to the tribunal and not to the State Government and therefore, the State Government could not have usurped such power of the tribunal to sit in judgment over the order passed by the management and to quash the order passed by the management with further direction to the management to reinstate the employee etc., 19. With regard to the appellate powers exercisable by the State Government, Sri Rajagopal has drawn our attention to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1998 and would submit that, if at all if there is any scope for the Government to act as an appellate authority in terms of Section 130 of the Act, which reads as under: “130. Appeals.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person or Governing Council, aggrieved by an order passed by an officer or authority under this Act may within the prescribed period prefer an appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority.” It is under Rule 3 of the rules which, in turn, reads as under: “3. Period for making Appeal and Appellate Authority.-(1) Any person or Governing Council may prefer an appeal under Section 130 within a period of thirty days from the date of the order appealed against. (2) For the purpose of Section 130, authorities specified in column (3) of the Table below shall be the prescribed. Appellate Authorities in respect of the category of Educational Institutions specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof. TABLE Sl. No. Category of Educational Institutions Authorities Authority to which the Authorities specified in column (3) are subordinate .(1) .(2) .(3) .(4) (a)……… ……….. ………. (b)……… ………… ……….. ©………. ………….. …………. (d)…………. ………….. …………… (a)……….. …………. ………. (b)…………. ……………. ………… ©………… …………. ……………. (d)……….. ………….. TABLE Sl. No. Category of Educational Institutions Authorities Authority to which the Authorities specified in column (3) are subordinate .(1) .(2) .(3) .(4) (a)……… ……….. ………. (b)……… ………… ……….. ©………. ………….. …………. (d)…………. ………….. …………… (a)……….. …………. ………. (b)…………. ……………. ………… ©………… …………. ……………. (d)……….. ………….. ……………… 3 Pre-University College/Junior Colleges Director of pre-University Education Government 4 ………… …………. ……………… 5 ……………… ………… …………. 6 ……… ………. ……………. 7 ……………. ………….. ……………… Provided that if any Authority specified in column (3) of Table itself has passed an order appealable under Section 130, an appeal against such an order shall lie, within thirty days form the date of the order, to the Authority specified in column (4) to which it is subordinate. Provided further that if any Authority specified in column (4) of the Table, other than the Government itself has passed an order appealable under Section 130, an appeal against such an order shall lie, within thirty days from the date of the order, to the Government. And therefore submits that the appellate jurisdiction is only to act as an appellate authority against any order passed by any authorities under the Act and not against an order passed by the private educational institution against its employee imposing any penalty which is expressly made subject matter for appeal to the tribunal in terms of Section 94 of the Act. 20. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the State Government was not only acting without jurisdiction, but usurping the powers of a statutory quasi-judicial tribunal kike the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, which is a gross misuse and abuse of the power and the power in exercised in such a mala fide manner only at the behest of 2nd respondent, the then Minister, to favour the 5th respondent –employee and to damage the interest and image of the appellant-institution. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Government is vitiated by mala fide exercise of power, is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and has to be quashed in its entirety. 21. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Government is vitiated by mala fide exercise of power, is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and has to be quashed in its entirety. 21. It is also submitted that the safeguards provided under Section 94 such as, the management being given an opportunity to lead evidence before the tribunal to independently make good the charges leveled against the employee even when it is found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, is not only totally deprived for the appellant-institution, but the impugned order imposes the 5th respondent on the appellant-management in his earlier post as a Principal ignoring that, if the management has to hold an enquiry afresh and the order of penalty is set aside, the employee cannot resume functioning in the post, but at the best, could have remained a suspended employee, during the pendency of the enquiry by the management. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Government apart from being void and non est in law, has vastly affected the interest of the management by denying the statutory safeguards provided to a management under the provisions of the Act and is liable to be set aside. 22. In support of the submission that the appellants’ jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the management imposing any penalty on its employee, is only with Educational Appellate Tribunal, Sri.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of THE PRESIDENT, GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST VS. THJE DISTRICT JUDGE, E.A.T., KOLAR reported in (ILR 1979 kar 526). Sri.Rajagopal would also place reliance on the single bench decision of this Court in the case of AJIT MAHENDRA BHANDARI VS. THJE DISTRICT JUDGE, E.A.T., KOLAR reported in (ILR 1979 kar 526). Sri.Rajagopal would also place reliance on the single bench decision of this Court in the case of AJIT MAHENDRA BHANDARI VS. SECRETATRY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007 (5) KLJ 587) to submit that the State Government while exercising its revisional powers u/s 131 of the Act cannot act as an appellate authority and also that while exercising appellate power u/s 130 of the Act, the State Government cannot interfere with the orders passed by the private managements as the appeal u/s 130 is contemplated only against orders passed by Officers or under the Act and lies to a prescribed appellate authority and in the present case, the order imposing a penalty on its employee by the management is neither an order passed by an Officer or authority under the Act nor the State Government is the prescribed authority in such a situation. It is accordingly submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for interference as the order passed by the State Government setting aside the orders of the management is null and void, without jurisdiction nor sustainable and is liable to be quashed in its totality. 23. Appearing on behalf of the respondent-employee Sri.P.A.Kulkarni, very vehemently supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that no interference is warranted in this appeal having regard to the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the fact that the order of the management dated 31.05.2006 inflicting punishment on the employees an order which is otherwise also bad in law and being not sustainable and if the State Government had set right that by setting aside wrong or incorrect order and ultimately justice having been rendered in favour of the employee, assuming for argument sake that the State Government was either incompetent to pass such an order or had assumed the jurisdiction in any other form to pass the order, it does not calls for interference and therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with that part of the order passed by the State Government and the Writ Appeal should be dismissed. 24. 24. Elaborating his submission Mr.Kulkarni would submit that the order passed by the management being on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee and that the Enquiry Committee comprising of and headed by the President of the Trust against whom the employee had leveled allegations of misappropriation of the funds of the Trust and against whom even the authorities had found material to hold that he had not acted in good faith and on the other hand had caused loss not only to the State Government but also to the Trust and in spite of the directions issued by the State Government for constituting the Committee so as to include a non-management person in the Committee, the management having refused to do so, the proceedings of the Committee, its report and the ultimate punishment are all vitiated by the principles of bias and therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice and the order of punishment being not sustainable in law, that order only deserved to be quashed and that alone being the consequence even in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition presented by the management, no interference is warranted in the Writ Appeal and the appeal should be dismissed. 25. Submission of Sri.Kulkarni is that there is no need to quash the order passed by the State Government and to direct the employee to avail of the remedy as provided under the Act i.e., by filing an appeal to the Educational Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Management as ultimately the result being the same namely the order of the management being vitiate by the principles of bias and liable to beset aside even the Tribunal will have to only set aside that order and if so driving the employee to go through, the exercise of filing an appeal will be a mere formality and an exercise in futility and therefore, that can be avoided by leaving intact the order passed by the Government and that precisely being what has been done by the learned Single Judge, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 26. In support of his submission that the principles of bias would vitiate the proceedings or order Sri.Kulkarni would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN CHAUBEY VS. 26. In support of his submission that the principles of bias would vitiate the proceedings or order Sri.Kulkarni would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN CHAUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in ( AIR 1984 SC 1356 ). Mr.Kulkarni, would draw attention to the record to substantiate the submissions made by him and would read the portion of the order contained in para 8 of the learned Single Judge and would submit that the very articles of charge issued to the employee were in the context of the employee having disobeyed or disregarded or disrespected the President of the Trust and even the employee in response to the articles of change having made allegations against the President of the institution an Enquiry Committee consisting of President of the institution and two of its Director is clearly hit by the principles of bias, such a Committee could not have sit in judgment for holding an enquiry which amounts to deciding its own cause and this in spite of the direction by the Commissioner of Pre-University Education Board to reconstitute the Committee, having not been complied, the proceedings of the Committee leading to the imposition of punishment on the employee is inevitably vitiated and such being the situation even as was brought on record, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the order passed by the State Government in exercise of its powers u/s 131 of the Act. 27. The other reason given by the learned Single Judge for not interfering with the order of the State Government to the effect that the enquiry and other proceedings before the management having taken place even during the pendency of the appeal No.26/2006 before the State Government and notwithstanding the order issued by the State Government staying further proceedings and enquiry, such order of the management is again vitiated is the unassailable position in law and the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the State Government and the order of the learned Single Judge to this effect is a proper finding in law; that there is absolutely no need or justification to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge in this appeal and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 28. 28. Mr.Kulkarni, would also submit that as an alternative and to bring about peace under rapproachement between the parties, the management could agree to reinstate the employee as a member and thereafter can be sent on deputation to Government Service if the management does not wish to continue his service. 29. So far as this position is concerned, Mr.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellant-management submits that the management having acted in a fair and proper manner and having inflicted a lesser or minor punishment of reduction in rank on the employee as against the possible major punishment of dismissal in itself demonstrates the bonafides of the management and submits that it is not in the hands of the management to send any of its employees on deputation to government service and not an aspect over which the appellant can respond. 30. Mr.Rajagopal would submit that the orders passed by the State Government being without jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the Act and being vitiated by malafides or arbitrary exercise of power, it is just and necessary that the legal position be clarified and appeal disposed of on its merits. 31. Sri.Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Government submits that the order of the l earned Single Judge does not call for any interference; that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the portion of the order of the State Government setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the appellant-management and for the vivid reasons indicated in the submission of Sri.Kulkarni, this writ appeal should be dismissed. 32. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judger and looked into the record in the writ appeal and bestowed our attention to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 33. Sri.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the management would vehemently urge that interference is called for in this appeal for setting right the wrong done by the State Government in usurping the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, has acted contrary to the statutory provisions and exercised power for ulterior purpose and in a malafide manner and has given a go by to the rule of law is to prevail and laws are to be adhered and enforced. While the facts as narrated by Sri.Rajagopal would project that the action on the part of the management is fully justified and in accordance with statutory provisions, the developments is sought to be put in a different perspective by Sri.Kulkarni learned counsel for the respondent, to submit that no interference is warranted in the writ appeal. 34. The learned Single Judger proceeded on the premise that the appellant-institution had failed to comply with certain valid directions issued by the Commissioner, Pre-University Education Board in exercise of its powers under Rule 17(2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 and further that the management consciously disregarded the interim order of stay passed by the State Government dated 16.05.2006 in proceeding ahead with disciplinary proceedings and in ultimately passing the order dated 31.05.2006 which the State Government has rightly set aside. 35. The learned Single Judge also proceeded on the premise that the order dated 21.08.2006 passed by the State Government in its appellate jurisdiction u/s 131 is a valid order in law. The learned Single Judge opined that the concluding enquiry proceedings and the ultimate order of penalty being during the pendency of appeal No.26/2006 before the State Government and in contravention of the stay order granted in this appeal, the proceedings and the orders passed by management is not sustainable in law. 36. We find both on facts and in law, none of these findings are sustainable. Firstly, we find that the direction issued by the Commissioner for Pre-University Education on 07.04.2006 purporting to direct the management to constitute the Committee in terms of Section 17 (2) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, it is not a direction valid in law and is one without jurisdiction. We say so for the reason that these Rules were not in force as on 07.04.2006. When such directions were issued, the Rules that held the field on this day was the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions)Rules, 1999. As pointed by Sri.Rajagopal the requirement is indicated under Rule 21 of the present Rules and there being no requirement in the present Rules with regard to the nature of composition of the Enquiry Committee, we hold that the direction is one without jurisdiction and is of no consequence in law. 37. As pointed by Sri.Rajagopal the requirement is indicated under Rule 21 of the present Rules and there being no requirement in the present Rules with regard to the nature of composition of the Enquiry Committee, we hold that the direction is one without jurisdiction and is of no consequence in law. 37. We also notice that the learned Single Judge has also presumed that the management deliberately avoided to receive the copy of the order of stay passed by the State Government even when it is not made good on record, in fact the State Government did not place any supportive record before the Court either before the learned Single Judge or before us. We find even in law, the State Government did not have power or jurisdiction to stay an enquiry proceedings initiated by a private management against its employees wither in exercise of its revisional power u/s 131 of the Act or in exercise of any appellate power or in exercise of appellate powers available to an appellate authority u/s 130 of the Act. While the State Government has revisional jurisdiction u/s 131 of the Act, even to examine the record of an educational institution the power to stay is only in respect of any decision or order which is sought to be implemented or executed even during the consideration of the revision petition by the State Government. An order or a decision of the management to constitute an enquiry committee for holding an enquiry against an employee who has been issued with articles of charge and with whose explanation the managements not satisfied, cannot be characterized as an order or decision within the scope of sub-section 2 of Section 131 which is the enabling statutory provision in favour of the State Government to stay any decision or order pending the revision petition. 38. The decision of the management to constitute enquiry is very much part of the holding of an enquiry against the employee and cannot be construed to constitute a separate order or decision, so as to be made amenable to the revision jurisdiction of he State Government u/s 131. 39. 38. The decision of the management to constitute enquiry is very much part of the holding of an enquiry against the employee and cannot be construed to constitute a separate order or decision, so as to be made amenable to the revision jurisdiction of he State Government u/s 131. 39. The Scheme of the Act is not to cause interference by the State Government in certain areas of functioning of the private management and in respect of matters which is expressly made subject matter of appeal to the independent quasi judicial tribunal like the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted u/s 96 of the Act and in an appeal u/s 94 of the Act, expressly providing for an avenue of remedy in favour of a dissatisfied employee of a private educational institution who is reduced in rank as in the case of 5th respondent, it is clear that the Scheme of the Act is to confer such appellate power to examine the validity of the order of penalty passed by the management reducing the rank of the employee, only on an independent quasi judicial Tribunal and not in the State Government which otherwise has administrative control and exercises statutory powers over the functioning of private educational institutions in the wake of an ultimate order passed by the management. Inflicting the penalty of reduction in rank of an employee an appeal can only be brought before the Tribunal and if the position is such in respect of the final order it is afortiori. So in respect of an interim stage of the proceedings leading to such an order. 40. We are of the clear view that the State Government or any of its officers have no jurisdiction or statutory power to interfere with the enquiry proceedings even at the stage of enquiry and issue administrative directions to direct the private management to conduct the proceedings in one way or the other. The provisions of Rule 17 (2) of the old Rules are obviously at variance with the Scheme of the Act and at any rate militates against the object and intendment of Section 94 of the ACT R/W Rule 21 of the present Rules. 41. The provisions of Rule 17 (2) of the old Rules are obviously at variance with the Scheme of the Act and at any rate militates against the object and intendment of Section 94 of the ACT R/W Rule 21 of the present Rules. 41. Therefore, for the very reason it inevitably follows that the State Government has no jurisdiction ev en to stay the enquiry proceedings for any reason and exercise of such power and passing of such an order is clearly without jurisdiction and contrary to the Scheme of the Act. 42. A power that is conferred and exercisable by the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal cannot be exercised by the State Government either to work out its revisional jurisdiction u/s 131 or as part of the powers of an appellate authority exercisable u/s 130 of the Act. The orders passed by the State Government pursuant to the initial representation of the employee on 24.03.2006 or on the subsequent representation dated 04.05.2006 addressed to the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Karnataka, purporting to exercise powers either u/s 131 or u/s 130 are therefore clearly without jurisdiction. The management in its initial reply dated 14.04.2006 Annexure-P had pointed out that Rule 17(2) of the Old Rules was no more in vogue and therefore there is no requirement to conform with that Rule. 43. One another aspect which does not escape our attention is that the management had clearly alleged that the then Minister for Primary and Secondary Education was rooting for the employee and was orchestrating the proceedings and the orders of the Government through the officials of the Education Department and that is a clear case of malafide exercise of power. 44. The manner in which the Commissioner for Pre-University Education Board and the Secretary to the State Government have responded to the representation of the employee and issued one sided unilateral orders even without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions, only lends support to this allegation of the management and it is inevitable to interfere with the exercise of power by the State Government and its official as it is not only vitiated for want of legal sanctity by itself but further compounded by the manner of malafide exercise of the power at the behest of the Minister who was inclined to favour the employee. 45. 45. Viewed from any angle none of the directions and orders passed by the State Government whether the initial direction by the Commissioner or the subsequent stay order by the State Government or even the ultimate order dated 21.08.2006 setting aside the order passed by the Management purporting to exercise its appellate powers are all legally not valid, not sustainable, contrary to the statutory provisions and a clear case of arbitrary and malafide exercise of power. 46. While such is the legal position, Sri.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the employee does not join issue on this legal position to demonstrate that it is not so but on the other hand would submit that there are legal principles and authorities to support and sustain the order of the State Government and the order of the learned Single Judge on the principles of bias and by contending that the enquiry proceedings conducted by committee comprising of a person whom the employee apprehended had a vindictive attitude towards him had vitiated the enquiry proceedings and the order of penalty passed by the management is not sustainable, and therefore if such an order bad in law due to the principles of bias is set aside by the State Government and the learned Single Judge taking note of this aspect declined to interfere with the orders passed by the State Government, to set aside the orders passed by the management then, there is no need to interfere in this writ appeal. 47. This argument over looks many pitfalls in accepting this submission and virtually appeals to this Court to give a go by to the Rule of law and to shut a blind eye to arbitrary and malafide exercise of power by the State and it s officers. 48. It has to be borne in mind that a wrong in law committed by one authority cannot be set right by another wrong committed by another authority which has no say or no jurisdiction in the matter. Rule of law envisages corrective measures to be taken in accordance with law and not by any and every person and not by any and every means. No person however high or powerful can take law into his own hands in the name of setting right some wrongs. 49. Rule of law envisages corrective measures to be taken in accordance with law and not by any and every person and not by any and every means. No person however high or powerful can take law into his own hands in the name of setting right some wrongs. 49. As rightly submitted by Sri Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellant, permitting the illegal and arbitrary orders of the State and its officers to remain as it is, apart from amounting to endorsing lawlessness, also adversely affects the interest of the appellant-management in two ways. 50. Firstly, if the delinquent employee should have been allowed to have his statutory remedies such as an appeal to the Educational Appellate Tribunal and even if the tribunal should have found something amiss with the domestic enquiry conducted by the management, in terms of the law indicated in the case of THE PRESIDENT, GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, E.A.T., KOLAR reported in ILR 1979 KAR 526 relied upon by Sri Rajagopal, the Management would have got an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate the order passed by it and by the impugned orders passed by the State Government, that opportunity is lost to the management. 51. Secondly, with the employee having been placed under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry, even if the final order of imposing penalty should have been set aside by the appellate authority or higher authority and the matter goes back to the employer for holding a fresh enquiry and pass orders afresh in terms of the procedure envisaged for such enquiry and orders, the position of the delinquent employee will only be to revert to the status of a suspended employee and does not fetch him the benefit of reinstatement into the post and to keep working in the post even during the enquiry proceedings. 52. 52. A positive direction by the State Government issued to reinstate the employee as Principal of the College, purporting to exercise appellate power under Section 130 of the Act, is a direction which goes even beyond the scope of appellate power under Section 130 and with the legal position being that an appellate power under Section 130 being not available to the Government in a situation of the present nature, the orders passed by the Government definitely affects the interest of the management in an adverse manner and when the management is complaint of the same invoking Articles 226/227 jurisdiction of this Court for ushering in corrective measures by quashing the illegal, arbitrary orders passed by the State Government, this Court cannot decline to issue an appropriate writ on a presumption that the recourse to appeal remedy by the employee could have lead to the same result as is achieved by the orders passed by the Government and therefore, no writ for quashing such orders need be issued. 53. While the argument proceeds on an assumption that even an appeal before the tribunal would have lead to the same result and is speculative, in fact, it is not so as, even if the tribunal should have found fault with the finding recorded by the management during the course of enquiry, it will not lead to the same result. 54. It is for this reason, submission of Sri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that there is no need for interference in this appeal for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the order passed by the State Government even assuming that it is illegal of without jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. 55. It is to be noticed and it is hereby emphasized that following a due procedure envisaged in terms of a statutory provision is not an empty formality, but a requirement in law and cannot be avoided or bypassed. It is also necessary to be reminded that, when once legislation provides for methods and remedies and also the manner of getting the remedy, for an aggrieved person, such remedy cannot be provided by others who are not envisaged in the scheme of the Act. It is also necessary to be reminded that, when once legislation provides for methods and remedies and also the manner of getting the remedy, for an aggrieved person, such remedy cannot be provided by others who are not envisaged in the scheme of the Act. State Government has to role to play in the matter of exercise of appellate power under Section 94 of the Act and that power is expressly conferred on the quasi-judicial body such as the Educational Appellate Tribunal, in terms of Section 94 of the Act, to be exercised only by that tribunal and not by anyone else including the State Government. 56. State Government being allowed to usurp this power and exercise it in the name of bringing about corrective measures being ignored by this Court even when it is brought to the notice of this Court seeking for issue of a suitable writ to set right the same, amounts to tacitly approving the trampling of rule of law and cannot be permitted. In this regard, the Single Bench decision rendered in the case of AJIT MAHENDRA BHANDARI vs SECREGTARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA reported in 2007 (5) KLJ 587 does lend support to the submission of Sri Rajagopal. 57. It is, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and the writ petition is allowed in its entirety by issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Education Department, in Appeal No.26/2006. Rule issued and made absolute. 58. However, it is made clear that it is open to the 5th respondent-employee to avail of such remedies as are available to him in law as against the order of penalty imposed on him by the management. 59. It is also open to the State Government and the competent authorities to take such action as is warranted in law, in respect of any defaults on the part of the management in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act. Appeal allowed.