Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to quash the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 25.9.2009. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.10.1973 he has joined in the third respondent-Management as a Secondary Grade Teacher and he was promoted as Head Master on 2.2.1998. He is the office bearer of Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation which has been formed for the welfare of the Teachers’ working in Panchayat Union and private Schools. Whenever the grievance is brought to the notice of the Association, the same will be ventilated before the authorities. While he was holding the post of General Secretary of the Association, a flash news has been issued in the newspaper against the Director of Elementary Education and on the basis of the newspaper flash, the Director of Elementary Education instructed the first respondent to give instructions to the third respondent/Management to place the petitioner under suspension. 3. On the above said background, he was placed under suspension on 30.7.2009. Immediately, he approached and requested the Director to conduct enquiry. After finding that no news was given to the newspaper by the Association, the Director of Elementary Education, on 7.8.2009, directed the first respondent to instruct the Management to withdraw the suspension. Challenging the above said order, the Management had filed a Writ Petition without impleading the petitioner as a party to the proceedings and got an order of stay of the operation of the order. 4. In the meanwhile, the Management had issued a memo on 12.4.2009 on two grounds, viz., (i). He threatened the Management with the background of Politicians and Association, and (ii). He addressed a public meeting of CPM and acted against the Government Scheme of ABL (Activity Based Learning). Denying all the allegations, he submitted a detailed explanation on 21.4.2009. By way of reply, they informed the petitioner that they were pressurized by the rival association to give such Memo. 5. After the order passed by the Director to revoke the order of suspension, they had issued a memo dated 28.8.2009 on nine grounds. On receiving the Charge Memo on 1.9.2009, he made a representation on 14.9.2009 and requested the Management to furnish the documents based on which charges were framed. But without furnishing the same, they directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 25.9.2009. On receiving the Charge Memo on 1.9.2009, he made a representation on 14.9.2009 and requested the Management to furnish the documents based on which charges were framed. But without furnishing the same, they directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 25.9.2009. Only at the time of enquiry, they had furnished the documents consisting of 41 pages to the petitioner. Hence, he requested them to give 15 days’ time to furnish the explanation. Without getting any explanation and without examining any witness, they had passed an order of punishment on 25.9.2009 and terminated the petitioner from service on 26.9.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition praying for the relief as stated supra. 6. The third respondent has filed an affidavit along with vacate stay Petition and it is stated that the petitioner-School is a private School and receiving grant from the Government. It is governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act”) and the Rules made thereunder under Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules”). Thus, the entire action and functions of the petitioner School are subject to the above provisions and it is also stated that while the petitioner was the Head Master of the School, he has been continuously acting against the interest of the School, School management and the development of the School and committed serious misconduct in the discharge of his duties and violated the provisions of the act. He had indulged an impersonation of the Secretary of the School and fabricated his signature. Further, being a School Headmaster, the said Pothilingam had participated in a political meeting in contravention of the specific bar in the Code of Conduct applicable to him. Therefore, the attendance for the students have been decreased to a larger extent. Thus, there are various grave charges against him for his misconduct and in the discharge of his duties as Head Master of the School. There are prima facie evidence and material leading to initiation of disciplinary action against the said Head Master. 7. It is also stated in the affidavit that, findings as against the petitioner, charges and the connected materials available on record was placed before the first respondent for approval as required under Section 22(1) and (2) of Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act, 1974 r/w Rule 17 of the Act. 7. It is also stated in the affidavit that, findings as against the petitioner, charges and the connected materials available on record was placed before the first respondent for approval as required under Section 22(1) and (2) of Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act, 1974 r/w Rule 17 of the Act. Thereafter, they proceeded with disciplinary action of the petitioner and passed an order of termination on 25.9.2009. The first respondent passed an order on 5.10.2009 in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5798/A2/09 refused to give approval for the proposed termination of the petitioner. It is further stated that a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7878 of 2009 has been filed in respect of an issue relating to the office of the third respondent. 8. It is the stand of the third respondent that the first respondent failed to see the nature of order passed by the third respondent under Section 22 of above said Act is seems to be quasi-judicial in nature and the said satisfaction should be based on the opinion of the third respondent and not of that any other person and further Section 22 r/w Rule 17 does not provide an Appeal to any other authority as against the opinion formed by the third respondent in the process of enquiry conducted by them. Therefore, in the process for the purpose of forming an opinion to approve or not approve the proposed termination of the petitioner herein cannot be reversed by the first respondent as if he is an Appellate Authority which can be done only by an Appellate Authority. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Management had forwarded the papers to the first respondent for approval by enclosing the order of dismissal. But the first respondent had rejected the same on the ground that after dismissal, seeking approval is redundant and the approval has to be obtained before dismissal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even after refusal by the first respondent, the third respondent/Management had not permitted the petitioner to join in the School. Hence, the order of termination passed by the third respondent/Management is per se arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/The Secretary of Munnetra Sangam Elementary School submitted that the petitioner School is a private School and receiving grant from the Government. Hence, the order of termination passed by the third respondent/Management is per se arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/The Secretary of Munnetra Sangam Elementary School submitted that the petitioner School is a private School and receiving grant from the Government. The entire action and functions are subject to the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 and the Rules made thereunder Rules 1974. Being a School Head Master, Thiru. S. Pothilingam had participated in a political meeting in contravention of the specific bar in the code of Conduct applicable him and he had indulged in impersonation of the Secretary of the School and fabricated his signature. Hence, the Management had proceeded with disciplinary action of the petitioner herein and passed the order of termination. Obtaining prior approval is necessary only if the petitioner is an employee of a recognized Private school, but the third respondent-School is not recognized and as such the prior approval is not at all necessary. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would further submit that when the issue relating to the office of the third respondent is already pending in W.P.No.7878 of 2009, the petitioner had filed the case on hand regarding the same issue and got an order of interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2009. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and examined the relevant provisions of law. 14. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.10.1973 and was promoted as Head Master on 2.2.1998 and thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 30.7.2009 and Charge Memo has been issued on 12.4.2009 on two grounds and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.4.2009 and thereafter, another Charge Memo has been issued on 28.8.2009 on nine grounds. On receiving such a Charge Memo, he has made a representation on 14.9.2009 and an enquiry was conducted thereafter. However, the authorities without prior approval, passed the impugned order of punishment on 25.9.2009. 15. On receiving such a Charge Memo, he has made a representation on 14.9.2009 and an enquiry was conducted thereafter. However, the authorities without prior approval, passed the impugned order of punishment on 25.9.2009. 15. Section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 reads as follows: “(1) Subject to any Rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher or other person employed in any private school shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the Competent Authority. (2) Where the proposal to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private school is communicated to the Competent Authority, that authority shall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment.” 16. Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 reads as follows: “91) The competent authorities to accord prior approval for the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a teacher or other person employed in any private school, shall be the District Educational Officer in respect of teacher or other person employed in pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools and the Chief Education Officer in respect of teacher or other person employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers’ Training Institutes.” 17. The objects and reasons of the Act, seeks to regulate the establishment, management and control of private schools and provides for the regulation of the conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff in private schools. 18. By virtue of the provisions of the Act, the disciplinary control over the teacher of a private aided School vested with the School Committee and certain safeguards are provided under the Acts and Rules made thereunder. Therefore, in order to achieve the above object, Section 22(1) of the Act deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of teachers or other persons employed in private Schools. Therefore, in order to achieve the above object, Section 22(1) of the Act deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of teachers or other persons employed in private Schools. Clause (1) of Section 22 provides that – “Subject to any Rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher or other person employed in any private school shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank not shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the Competent Authority.” Further Clause (2) provides that – “Where the proposal to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private school is communicated to the Competent Authority, that authority shall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment.” 19. Similarly, the Rule also provides that the Competent Authority should grant prior approval for the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a teacher or other person employed in any private school, shall be the Competent Authority who has power and jurisdiction to give such an approval. 20. From the reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the competent School committee viz., the third respondent should have accorded prior approval of the Committee before removing the petitioner from service. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1973 and later, he was promoted as Head Master in the year 1998 and was placed under suspension on 30.7.2009. In the enquiry, petitioner insisted upon to produce certain documents. However, the enquiry has been culminated with a punishment of removal from service contrary to the provisions of the Act. Before, imposing punishment, it is the obligation on the part of school agency, namely., third respondent, to get prior approval from the Competent Authority. 21. In this case, without obtaining prior approval from the competent, as mandated by the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has been removed from service. In the absence of any such approval, the action of the respondents and the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of Section 22(1) and 2 of the Act. 21. In this case, without obtaining prior approval from the competent, as mandated by the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has been removed from service. In the absence of any such approval, the action of the respondents and the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of Section 22(1) and 2 of the Act. The cardinal principle of the Act is to regulate the establishment, Management and to have control over the private Schools providing for the regulation of the conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff in private schools. After communicating the removal of service to the Competent Authority, that authority shall if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such removal of appointment. In the absence of such prior approval, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is legally infirmed and the same is liable to be set aside. 22. In view of the above stated position and also after taking into consideration the various provisions, this Writ Petition has to be allowed on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 22(1) of the above said Act. 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.9.2009 is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to proceed further in accordance with the Rules, after following the procedure contemplated under law and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.