JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner has impugned Annexure-9, the order of the Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Saran at Chapra dated 9.10.2009 passed in Case No. 1429 of 2009. The short point raised on behalf of petitioner is that the Tribunal has acted merely as a post office on the dictates of the Collector, Saran. It seems Collector, Saran got enquiry done including asked for a show cause from the Mukhiya which show cause was filed before the Collector on 6.8.2009. Collector then, with his findings, referred the matter to the Tribunal on 1.10.2009 with a recommendation to take appropriate action for wrong appointments made by the Mukhiya and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The Tribunal registered the case on basis of the said recommendation of the Collector dated 19.9.2009 on 1.10.2009 for the purposes of passing formal orders and on 9.10.2009, without registering a proceeding duly, without notice to parties, without disclosure of materials to parties, passed the order affirming the order of the Collector holding petitioner responsible for making wrongful appointments and approving action of the Collector recommending removal of petitioner from the post of Mukhiya. All this is contrary to all principles of quasi judicial authority and its functioning. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Others since reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 136 which categorically lays down that a show cause even if filed in any proceeding not aware of the consequences, that is not compliance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal must itself have issued show cause, disclosed reports, heard the parties and then come to its independent finding. Tribunal is not to act as a rubber stamp for the Collector-cum-District Magistrate. If a party was aggrieved for wrongful appointment or denial of appointment, it is he who has to move the Appellate Tribunal and upon such motion, the Tribunal has to decide the matter independent of findings or enquiries conducted elsewhere. 2. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on any ground whatsoever. It is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such void ab initio. It has no legal sanctity and cannot be acted upon for any purpose. It is, thus, set aside. 3. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.