JUDGMENT : Mridula Bhatkar, J. 1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2007 rejecting respective writ petitions by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The respondents were working as Professors in the college of the appellants which is a Government aided Military Institution. Respondents have served as Professors for more than 10 years. Appellant-institution organized a National Conference on 3-4th January 2006 and many dignitaries from all over the Nation had attended the Seminar. The respondents, who were the members of Pune University & College Teachers' Organization (PUCTO) pursued other Professors that they should not attend the Seminar and should not co-operate with the management in organizing the Seminar. It is alleged that on the date of the Seminar, respondents did not attend the inaugural and valedictory function and they wore black ribbons. This led to shattering of the image of the institution and their conduct was against the discipline and rules of the college. They were charge-sheeted for the charges of insubordination of the authority and willful persistent neglect of duty. In the inquiry, the respondents were held guilty and their services were terminated. Appeals were filed before the Tribunal, Pune and the Tribunal set aside the order of the termination of both the respondents and directed the college to reinstate both the respondents to the post from which their services were terminated and also directed to give benefit of continuity in service and back- wages from the date of the termination till the date of reinstatement. 2. Against the order of the Tribunal, institution has filed writ petitions and both the writ petitions, by a common order dated 13.7.2007 were rejected by the learned Single Judge. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellants have filed these Letters Patent Appeals. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the respondents are guilty of the misconduct and though they were asked to tender apology at the time of negotiations, they did not. It was argued that the respondents did not attend the valedictory and inaugural function but also instigated other Professors to sabotage the function. Act of putting black ribbons is insubordination and it would amount to indiscipline on the part of the respondents. It was argued that the respondents did not attend the valedictory and inaugural function but also instigated other Professors to sabotage the function. Act of putting black ribbons is insubordination and it would amount to indiscipline on the part of the respondents. It was submitted that it being a military institution a strict discipline is expected to be followed by the staff including the Professors of the institution. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that these factors were not considered by the learned single Judge and in fact the termination of these respondents pursuant to proper inquiry is legal. It was further submitted that the charge of misconduct was raised against the three Professors including these two respondents. However, one of the Professor has tendered an apology. It was accepted by the institution and no action was initiated against him. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that in fact the respondents have participated in the Seminar and one of them has received certificate for the participation. So the charges of not attending the Seminar are false and denied. Learned Counsel further submitted that though black ribbons were put by the respondents at the time of the Seminar, this cannot be considered as a misconduct. He submitted that the respondents are not working anywhere since the date of the termination and they have earlier submitted their regret letters to the appellants. However, it was not accepted by the institution and they were not taken in service. After hearing submissions of both the parties, we are of the opinion that peaceful demonstration cannot be labelled as misconduct. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not show us any rule or code of conduct where such peaceful agitation or demonstration is considered as misconduct in the institution. No dress code was prescribed for the Seminar. The college, though imparts military training, is a private Government aided institution, is not a body of armed forces where standard of discipline is very high; in that case the rules of misconduct may vary. In the present case there might not be an active participation by the respondents at the time of the Seminar but their silent or passive participation is not indiscipline or misconduct. The seminar was conducted peacefully and there were no instances of slogans or shouts at the time of seminars. In the present case there might not be an active participation by the respondents at the time of the Seminar but their silent or passive participation is not indiscipline or misconduct. The seminar was conducted peacefully and there were no instances of slogans or shouts at the time of seminars. Thus, merely wearing black ribbons may amount to disagreement with the policy or the action of the management and that cannot be said as misconduct much less warrants such serious punishment like termination of service. 7. We do not find any merit in the matter. Learned Single Judge has rightly rejected both the petitions. 8. Today, Chairman and Principal of the institution are present in the Court so also one of the respondents i.e. Dr. Rajendra Popatrao Patil is present in the Court. Mr. Patil is a Professor of Chemistry and he has put in 17 years service in the institution. At the time of submission, learned Counsel of both the sides, agree that if an oral apology is tendered by the respondents in the Court to the Principal and Chairman, then the dispute can be settled and the management of the institution will not have any grievance against the respondents. Accordingly, respondent Mr. Patil expressed regret and tendered an apology and learned Counsel appearing for other respondent i.e. Dr. Vivek" Vasantrao Raje has submitted that the said respondent also adopts and expresses the similar feeling of regret and tendered an apology. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellants has accepted the apology. We make it clear that tendering this apology and expressing regret should not be construed that respondents have done any wrong or misconduct. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is maintained except the modification that they will be reinstated with continuity of service with 75% back-wages as it is agreed by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the institution will submit the bill of the 75% back-wages to the Government and thereafter when it will be honoured, they will pay the amount to the respondents. The Institution is free to submit the bill to the Government for reimbursement and it is for the Government to consider the same. Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent by reducing the back wages to the extent of 25%. Respondents should resume their duties from 1.8.2011. The Institution is free to submit the bill to the Government for reimbursement and it is for the Government to consider the same. Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent by reducing the back wages to the extent of 25%. Respondents should resume their duties from 1.8.2011. Arrears of back-wages to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.