Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.1988 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the State Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Application No. 57 of 1989 as also to direct the respondents to make the payment of salary regularly. 2. The short facts leading to filing of this case are that the present petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Navinchandra Amrutlal Shah. The husband of the Petitioner No. 1 was serving as an assistant teacher with the Respondent No. 2- since the year 1962. The Respondent No. 1 is the registered trust. The trust had constituted a Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the school and the time limit of the Managing Committee was going to be over on 31.05.1985. It is the case of the Petitioner No. 1 that her husband was the President of Vaghodia Yuvak Mandal continuously making request to dissolve the Managing Committee as the term was expired. 2.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that from the very beginning of the year 1984-85 itself her husband was harassed by the respondents. In that context the husband of the petitioner was given charge-sheet 6/7.11.1985 for several misconducts. The Managing Committee vide letter dated 8.12.1985 directed the Respondent No. 2 to constitute an Inquiry Commission in the matter. Again the Managing committee has given additional charge-sheet for several misconducts dated 18.2.1986 to the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 and directed to reply the same within 7 days. The husband of Petitioner No. 1 replied the same vide letter dated 24.02.1986 and demanded the copy of evidence vide letters dated 24.07.1987, 05.07.1986 but the said request was rejected. Thereafter, the Managing Committee vide letter dated 14.08.1986 informed the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 that he had been suspended from 14.08.1986, and suspension would be continued till the completion of the inquiry. The Inquiry Commission submitted the report on 27.09.1986 but nothing was suggested in the inquiry Report regarding the punishment of the petitioner. The District Education Officer, Baroda vide order dated 26.09.1986 after giving ex-parte hearing rejected the proposal to keep the petitioner under suspension. 2.2. The Inquiry Commission submitted the report on 27.09.1986 but nothing was suggested in the inquiry Report regarding the punishment of the petitioner. The District Education Officer, Baroda vide order dated 26.09.1986 after giving ex-parte hearing rejected the proposal to keep the petitioner under suspension. 2.2. After three days i.e. on 29.09.1986, the husband of the petitioner was again suspended w.e.f. 29.09.1986 on the ground that the petitioner had destroyed the evidence of the notebook of the student and issued charge-sheet for several charges. The said order of suspension was stayed by the Tribunal on 6.10.1986 and directed the Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to join the service and to give all the benefits as the regular teacher. Again the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 17.11.1986 conveyed to the husband of the petitioner that Managing Committee had taken a decision to held the same inquiry of the earlier two charge-sheets and the new charge-sheet dated 29.09.1986 together by the same Inquiry Commission. Vide letter dated 24.08.1987 the respondent authority made proposal to the District Education Officer, Baroda, to give approval to terminate the service of petitioner’s husband. However, the District Education Officer, Baroda, rejected the proposal of the Managing Committee. Against the order of the District Education Officer, Baroda, the Respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No. 21 of 1987 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an ad-interim order preventing the petitioner from joining the service with condition that the respondent-Institute would pay regular salary to the petitioner, as if the petitioner was continued in service. Thereafter, the petitioner was served the termination order dated 17.12.1988, on 30.12.1988 issued by the District Education Officer, Baroda, against which the petitioner filed an application being Application No. 57 of 1989 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties confirmed the order of termination vide order dated 29.12.1997. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as learned advocates appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order dated 14th August 1986 was not approved by the District Education Officer, Baroda, and the whole proceedings are mala fide. He further submitted that Principal of the school-respondent No.3 should not have been part of the Inquiry Committee. He further contended that the documents which are demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner. He further submitted that Principal of the school-respondent No.3 should not have been part of the Inquiry Committee. He further contended that the documents which are demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore the impugned orders are illegal and requires interference by this Court. 5. Learned advocates for the respondents has opposed the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner and fairly submitted that both the orders are just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court. Learned advocate for the respondents further submitted it is a statutory requirement and therefore the principal was made a member of the Inquiry committee and he was not examined as an witness. Apart from that the documents which has been relied upon by the management have been supplied to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned advocate for the respective parties at length. Looking to the seriousness of the charges against the delinquent, it will not be appropriate to interferred with the concurrent findings of the respondent authorities. The petitioner has committed serious breach of rules and regulations which he had to abide. In view of the factual matrix of Inquiry committee, it will not be appropriate to disturb the same at this stage. The petitioner claimed that the principal could not have been made a member of the committee, however, I am of the opinion that as it was a statutory requirement, the principal was made a member of the Inquiry Committee. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the documents which are demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner. However, this Court is of the opinion that if such documents are not supplied to the petitioner then he has to show what prejudice is caused to him, but the petitioner has not been shown any such prejudice caused for non-supply of such documents. The Inquiry Committee has given proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself but he has not examined partner of the firm in which he carried out the business in the name of his son to defend himself. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature, as a Government servant can not do another business during the period of his/her service and he cannot abuse his colleague in presence of the principal. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature, as a Government servant can not do another business during the period of his/her service and he cannot abuse his colleague in presence of the principal. Learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. 8. In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in this petition. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.