JUDGMENT By Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act against the order dated 24.8.07 passed by the learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. 12/2007(JET), whereby, the learned tribunal allowed the application of respondent No. 1 (petitioner therein) and has also quashed the order dated 16.4.2007 whereby the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under; Appellant No. 1 is a trust and a registered Muslim Minority Educational Society under the Societies Act, 1860. The Kabir Women's College was established by the trust with a view to promote all kinds of education among the minority and culturally backward communities of Chhotanagpur. The said college is being run by the appellant trust and is recognized and recommended by the Academic Council as a Minority college. It is the case of the appellant that the management of the institution is run by the trust and is established and managed by bye laws approved by the Board of Trustees. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as lecturer against the sanctioned post of lecturer of Home Science by order dated 15.1.1991 and accordingly she gave her joining and served the institution for about 20 years. Respondent No. 1 was served with charges vide Annexure-1 i.e. letter dated 20.2.2007 and following charges were leveled against her; (a) Inciting teachers, non-teaching staff and students against the college authority, (b) Tormenting and terrorizing the college students (c) Refusal of supervise the college canteen. (d) Boycotting and disturbing the college programmes. (e) Humiliating and torturing the new teachers. (f) Hatching conspiracy against the principal and intimidating her to act according to your whims. (g) Creating chaos and unruly scenes in the Farewell function. The letter of suspension dated 20.2.2007 issued by the appellant No. 2, whereby respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension for a period of 60 days with immediate effect pending enquiry on the ground that respondent No. 1 was found that she continued to indulge in activities and the detailed of the same is in the order of suspension itself. Respondent No. 1 gave her explanation in response to letter 12.4.2006, thereafter, the order of dismissal came to be passed. Respondent No. 1 gave her explanation in response to letter 12.4.2006, thereafter, the order of dismissal came to be passed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, respondent No.1 preferred a Case being Case No. 12/2007 before the learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal. Jharkhand Education Tribunal by order dated 24.8.07 allowed the application of respondent No. 1 and has also quashed the order dated 16.4.2007 whereby the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1 initially filed a case being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of suspension but subsequently, upon termination of respondent No. 1, she preferred an application seeking amendment in Case No. 12/2007. It is also submitted that the Tribunal proceeded further and passed the order regarding setting aside the termination order without allowing the amendment application and therefore the said order is bad in law. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 was given sufficient opportunity and all requisite procedures, required to be followed under bye laws, have been followed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while appreciating the materials available on record. It is also submitted that the charges leveled against respondent No. 1 is of serious in nature and looking to the gravity of the said charges, the Tribunal ought to have confirmed the order passed by the management. It is also submitted that the appellant is running educational institutions and indiscipline cannot be allowed in such an educational institution and therefore, after careful consideration of the explanation and material, which was available with the Committee, they decided to terminate the services of respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 refused to accept the report of enquiry and therefore, the ground agitated by respondent that she has not been served the enquiry report is not sustainable. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered all these aspects and thereby decided to set aside the order of termination. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 5. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered all these aspects and thereby decided to set aside the order of termination. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 5. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No. 1 has rendered almost 20 years of her services and she possesses brilliant past record, however, on account of bias attitude by one of the Secretaries of the Management, respondent No. 1 was victimized and her services were ordered to be terminated at the behest of the Secretary. It is also contended by the Respondent No. 1 that the termination order was passed in contravention of notification issued vide No.86/2005 by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly and properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby reached to a conclusion that the order of termination deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the basic requirement of principle of natural justice has not been followed while conducting the enquiry even the charges which were serviced upon the delinquent were not specific. However, respondent No. 1 submitted her explanation in response to the charges levelled against her but her explanation has not been considered in proper perspective by the Committee. It is further submitted that the delinquent has not been supplied the copy of the enquiry report at the time of issuance of second show cause notice. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 also submitted that the decision with regard to inflictment of punishment is very harass and the disciplinary authority, without considering the totality of the circumstances and in a haste manner, reached the conclusion to terminate the services of respondent No. 1. In support thereof, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while referring the order passed by the Tribunal pointed out that less than 24 hours of time was given to the delinquent for rendering her explanation in response to the second show cause notice. It is lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while setting aside the order of termination passed by management and therefore, the appeal preferred by the management may be rejected. 6. It is lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while setting aside the order of termination passed by management and therefore, the appeal preferred by the management may be rejected. 6. Considering the rival submissions and from perusal of judgment and order passed by the learned Jharkhand Tribunal rendered in the Case of 12/2007, it appears that the learned Tribunal has after careful consideration the materials available on record reached the conclusion that the order of termination of respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed due to non-observance of principle of natural justice. The learned Tribunal has discussed in detail about the requisite procedures, which are required to be followed while conducting a departmental enquiry. Learned Tribunal has observed in its order that even the charges, which were served upon the delinquent, were not specific. It also appears that the delinquent was provided less than 24 hours time to submit her explanation in response to second show cause notice. It also emerges from the record that the enquiry report has not been provided to the delinquent, which is mandatory requirement in a departmental proceeding. From perusal of order passed by the learned tribunal, it appears that the learned tribunal has rightly and properly appreciated the order passed by the management and thereafter, the tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the order of management is deserves to be set aside as the principle of natural justice has not been followed and in a haste manner, the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 has been passed. In the case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 Apex Court held as under:- “35. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the tribunal, therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is required to be confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Ad interim order granted by order dated 25.1.2008 is vacated. The authority concerned is directed to reinstate the services of respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages. Appeal dismissed.