Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of punishment of removal dated 9.7.2010 passed by the 4th respondent. 2. Mr.J.Justin, the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, assailing the impugned order, submitted that after his appointment as P.G. Teacher on 22.10.1990 at St.Louis Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Adyar, Chennai, an aided school by the Tamil Nadu Government, he worked for about 18 long years in the same School without any black mark. As a token of accepting his performance, he was promoted and posted as Head Master in CSI Higher Secondary School for Deaf, Santhome High Rod, Mylapore, Chennai, w.e.f. 1.6.2007. The said school is also under the control of the Commissioner, Department of Differently Abled, Chennai, and the District Differently Abled Rehabilitation Officer, Chennai, respondents 1 and 2 herein, which are Government aided institutes. The said school is owned and run by the 3rd respondent CSI Diocese of Madras and the head of the Diocese is the 4th respondent Bishop. The upkeep, maintenance and administration of the school campus is being controlled by the 3rd respondent through 4th respondent Bishop. The funds for the maintenance of the school, salary for the staff, etc. are provided by the State Government through the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent authorities under the Government aided education scheme. While so, the petitioner, from the date of his joining the school services, maintained a satisfactory and cordial relationship with everyone. However, when the school building was in a dilapidated stage, the hostel students, who were staying there, were suffering during the rainy season, which prompted the management to go for construction of a new block by mobilizing donations and funds from the public. The estimate made by the management was to the tune of Rs.18,50,000/- for putting up a new construction. However, when the management was not able to mobilize funds, the petitioner had to raise funds by way of donation and materials for construction purposes. In view of that, the petitioner, keeping in mind the plight of the disabled poor students, who are staying in the dilapidated hostel building, raised the requisite funds and also sent monthly reports regularly to the 4th respondent in respect of expenses met in the construction. In the mean while, the present school was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 2009. In the mean while, the present school was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 2009. Again for constructing additional buildings and necessary infrastructure, the 4th and 5th respondents proposed to raise funds by way of selling raffle tickets. They printed the raffle tickets and handed over the same to the petitioner to raise additional funds and accordingly, the petitioner, by selling the raffle tickets through various persons, raised substantial funds. 3. At this point of time, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to sign a cheque for the value of Rs.6 lakhs on 3.2.2010 to fulfil the needs of some other school. As the funds were raised exclusively for the benefit of the present school, the petitioner declined to sign the cheque. Prejudiced by the said act of the petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents found various baseless, false allegations against him and by cooking up furthermore false allegations, placed the petitioner under suspension on 7.4.2010, followed by a charge memo dated 12.4.2010. Immediately on receipt of the suspension order and the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation pointing out that all the allegations are false, motivated and concocted ones. However, the respondent management failing to accept the reasonable explanation given by the petitioner, finally appointed an enquiry officer to go into the allegations. Although the petitioner, during the enquiry proceedings, has established his case that no charge can be maintained against him, the enquiry officer, accepting the case of the management, has found him guilty on all the charges. 4. Finally, the disciplinary authority, after the receipt of the enquiry report, furnished a copy thereof to the petitioner and issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed written representation. The petitioner, after receipt of the copy of the enquiry report and the second show cause notice, submitted a detailed representation again bringing to the notice of the disciplinary authority that some of the charges were motivated, baseless and could not be accepted by a man of ordinary prudence. But the disciplinary authority failed to accept the explanation whatsoever from the petitioner, finally, has imposed the impugned punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, on an earlier occasion filed W.P.No.20425 of 2010. But the disciplinary authority failed to accept the explanation whatsoever from the petitioner, finally, has imposed the impugned punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, on an earlier occasion filed W.P.No.20425 of 2010. But, this Court finding that no writ will lie against the order of removal passed by the minority institution, directed the petitioner to approach the civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner was driven from this Court to the City Civil Court, Chennai, by filing O.S.No.4158 of 2013. In the mean time, the management filed W.A.No.186 of 2014 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under Sections 53 and 53[a] of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools [Regulation] Act, 1973, and this Court by order dated 13.2.2014, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and restored the writ petition to file, giving liberty to both parties to take all the available contentions in the writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Adding further, the petitioner had stated that when the order of removal has been passed against the petitioner with all unacceptable allegations without there being any sufficient and proper evidence, the enquiry officer has wrongly decided against the petitioner declining to accept the explanations offered to each of the charge levelled against him. On a reading of the enquiry report, he pleaded, it is a biased one. Therefore, the impugned order imposing the major punishment against the petitioner, who was working in a school by showing individual attention towards the disabled children, having been completely ignored by the school authority, and is required to be interfered with as the approach adopted by the respondent-management is a complete arbitrary exercise of power. He had further stated that he had submitted a written representation to the disciplinary authority dealing with each of the allegations and the findings given by the enquiry officer. But the disciplinary authority again, without considering any of the explanation given by the petitioner, imposed a grave punishment of removal from service, as a result of which, the petitioner has been deprived of not only his livelihood, but also abstained from seeking future employment anywhere in any of the institutions. But the disciplinary authority again, without considering any of the explanation given by the petitioner, imposed a grave punishment of removal from service, as a result of which, the petitioner has been deprived of not only his livelihood, but also abstained from seeking future employment anywhere in any of the institutions. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner for not parting with the funds collected, to the respondent, being grave and disproportionate to the proven charges with social stigma, is liable to be interfered with. 6. Adding further, he had stated that when it is an admitted case that the petitioner, having refused to sign the cheque for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on 3.2.2010, within two months from the date of such refusal, the suspension order was passed on 7.4.2010 and the charge memo was also slapped against the petitioner, clearly shows that the respondent has decided to victimize the petitioner for not acceding to part with the hard earned money intended for the construction of the hostel building to accommodate the poor special students during the rainy season. Again focussing heavily on the failure on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in not obtaining the approval of the termination and removal of his service, he has contended that the impugned order of removal, without obtaining the prior approval of the educational authorities, is not legally sustainable. On these grounds, he sought for the interference of this Court. 7. In support of the above submissions, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in B.Devashanthini v. The Director of School Education reported in 2010 [2] CWC 757 for a proposition that although the management is entitled to appoint a person, who according to them, is most suited to head the institution, and in that process, they could ignore the claim of the same minority community, there should be a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action and such a procedure has to be evolved by none other than the management. According to the petitioner, this rational procedure has not been followed by the management before imposing the major punishment of removal from service. For the similar proposition, the petitioner has also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.275 and 1037 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.7193 and 7235 of 1986, dated 30.4.1998. 8. According to the petitioner, this rational procedure has not been followed by the management before imposing the major punishment of removal from service. For the similar proposition, the petitioner has also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.275 and 1037 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.7193 and 7235 of 1986, dated 30.4.1998. 8. Mr.A.Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-management urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition stating that the petitioner, who was originally appointed as Headmaster on probation w.e.f. 1.6.2008 for two years was considered only a fresh recruit from another management. During the period of probation, he suffered nine serious charges, including sexual harassment of women teaching staff, unauthorized collection of school annual fee in excess by harassing the poor students, etc. In view of various serious allegations, an enquiry was directed to be held against him. Finally, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted. On the side of the management, 14 witnesses were examined and they were all allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner also examined 10 witnesses to support his case, which shows that the management has fairly and properly conducted the enquiry. In addition thereto, he was also allowed to peruse all the available documents during the course of enquiry. Finally, the petitioner, in his own handwriting, expressed his satisfaction over the fair enquiry and also made an endorsement to that effect on 20.5.2010, i.e. on the last date of enquiry. Therefore, the question whether a fair and proper enquiry has been conducted by the management before imposing the impugned punishment needs to be looked into. When the petitioner himself has endorsed to the effect that a fair and proper enquiry has been conducted and he has been satisfied with the same, the question of interfering with the quantum of punishment, in the present case, does not arise. The reason is that the respondent-management being a minority institution, is not required to obtain any prior approval from the authorities before imposing any punishment, whether it is minor or major punishment. The reason is that the respondent-management being a minority institution, is not required to obtain any prior approval from the authorities before imposing any punishment, whether it is minor or major punishment. In this context, he has pressed into service several decisions of this Court to contend that there is no need for either sanction or approval from the educational authorities for imposing punishment on a delinquent employee in a minority institution, as Sections 15 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools [Regulation] Act, 1973 are inapplicable to minority institution, as held by this Court in T.Sanjeeva Rao v. The Director of School Education and another reported in 2012 WLR 463, wherein, a Honourable Division Bench of this Court, while examining a question as to whether a Minority Institution, while passing an order of removal of a Teacher, should necessarily obtain prior approval from the Government, has held, by following the ratio laid down in Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association vs. Union of India (1986) 4 SCC 707 , that a regulation providing for prior approval for dismissal of any employee in respect of a minority institution was invalid. It is added that, in the same line, two other Division Bench decisions of this Court in All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1980 [2] SCC 478 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India reported in 1986 [4] SCC 707, reiterate such ratio. 9. Referring to the decision in All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1980 [2] SCC 478, it has been contended that while considering the right of the minority institution, the Apex Court has held that a regulation providing that no teacher would be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, or terminated otherwise except with the prior approval of the competent authority, was held to be invalid. Again referring to the decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India reported in 1986 [4] SCC 707, he has further contended that in the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that the regulation providing for prior approval for dismissal was held to be invalid, while the provision for an appeal against the order of dismissal by an employee to a tribunal was upheld. Therefore, on this basis, he pleaded that the arguments advanced by the petitioner that the impugned order of removal passed by the management is required to be interfered with for the reason that no prior approval was obtained from the educational authorities has no legs to stand, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1980 [2] SCC 478 and Frank Anthony Public School case mentioned supra. 10. The learned counsel has also placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka reported in [2002] 8 SCC 481, to contend that the Apex Court, while considering an identical issue in similar cases, with regard to appointment of teachers, has held that no interference with minority's choice of qualified teachers, or its disciplinary control over teachers and other members of the staff of the institution, could be justified and any such interference would be violative of Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in Lily Kurian v. Sr.Lewina reported in [1979] 2 SCC 124, it has been contended that the Apex Court has struck down the power of the Vice-Chancellor to veto the decision of the management to impose a penalty on a teacher by holding the power of the Vice-Chancellor, while hearing an appeal against the imposition of the penalty, was uncanalized and unguided. 11. Moving to the evidence and the standard of proof applied in the course of enquiry, before passing the impugned order of removal, it has been further contended that the scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted to the present case, when the management has established that a proper and fair enquiry has been conducted before passing the impugned order. Indeed, the petitioner has also given a satisfactory remark stating that the enquiry has been properly conducted and he has been satisfied with the fair enquiry conducted on all the charges. Therefore, when the respondent-management was able to show that proper enquiry was held, before the imposition of the final punishment, viz., removal from service, as held by this Court, as well as by the Apex Court [mentioned supra], no interference is called for, he pleaded. 12. Therefore, when the respondent-management was able to show that proper enquiry was held, before the imposition of the final punishment, viz., removal from service, as held by this Court, as well as by the Apex Court [mentioned supra], no interference is called for, he pleaded. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner had joined the service as P.G. Teacher on 22.10.1990 at St.Louis Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Adyar, Chennai, an aided school by the Tamil Nadu Government, and worked for about 18 longs years in the same School without any black mark. As a token of recognition of his performance, he was promoted and posted as the Headmaster in CSI Higher Secondary School for Deaf, Santhome High Rod, Mylapore, Chennai, w.e.f. 1.6.2007, which is in continuation of his service for the past 18 years. The said school is owned and run by the 3rd respondent CSI Diocese of Madras and the head of the Diocese is the 4th respondent Bishop. 13. When the matter stood as above, a decision was taken to mobilize a sum of Rs. Rs.18,50,000/- for putting up a new hostel construction to accommodate the students during the rainy season. The petitioner was also given the task of selling raffle tickets to raise funds. In this process, the petitioner had collected a handsome donation of about Rs.13,90,000/-. Since the petitioner has collected the above said amount, the 4th respondent appears to have asked him to sign a cheque to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs for the benefit of another school, for some other purpose. As the petitioner has misunderstood and refused to sign the cheque, because the amount was collected for special children in his school, he was placed under suspension within two months by the Bishop for purported disobedience and indiscipline. Subsequently, when he was issued with the charge memo dated 12.04.2010, alleging sexual harassment, misuse of his position as Headmaster, he denied the charges by submitting detailed explanation. However, the Disciplinary Authority, refusing to accept the explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who, after completing the enquiry, found him guilty of all the charges. Pursuant thereto, he was issued with a second show-cause notice and thereafter, dismissing his written representation, the impugned order of removal from service was passed. However, the Disciplinary Authority, refusing to accept the explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who, after completing the enquiry, found him guilty of all the charges. Pursuant thereto, he was issued with a second show-cause notice and thereafter, dismissing his written representation, the impugned order of removal from service was passed. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner previously prosecuted the present W.P. No.20425 of 2010, however, this Court, vide order dated 25.03.2013, by finding that no writ will lie against the order of dismissal passed by the Minority Institution, directed the petitioner to file a Civil Suit before the Court concerned. Accordingly, he filed O.S.No.4158 of 2013, but in the meantime, the Management filed W.A.No.186 of 2014, challenging the order passed in the Writ Petition by contending that, in view of the clear Bar under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, Civil Suit is not maintainable. Keeping in view that the petitioner cannot be sent remediless, if the Civil Suit is not maintainable, by Judgment dated 13.02.2014, the Division Bench, by setting aside the order dated 25.03.2013 passed in W.P. No.20425 of 2010, restored the Writ Petition to file. It is, at this point of time, the petitioner, citing several judgments including the one rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.4478 of 1974, etc. batch, vide order dated 17.12.1975 (The Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, by Rev.Bro.A.Thomas, SHJ, General Manager and another v. The State of T.N. and others), would highlight that in the said decision, Sections 8(1) (a), 11(1)(b), 12(1), 14 to 18, 21(2) to 26, 31 to 33, 39(4), 41 to 45 and Rules 7, 9 except clauses (e) and (k) of sub rule (2) Rules 10 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 24 were declared as inapplicable to Minority Institutions. Simultaneously, the Division Bench held that the provision under Section 8(1) (a) of the Act running to the effect that wherever there arises any change in the constitution of the Educational Agency, that Agency shall apply to the competent authority for approval of such change, will also violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, because, the fundamental right conferred under Article 30(1) includes also the right to establish a minority institution and such right should be untrammelled and its exercise should require the approval of no one. By observing that change in the constitution of the Educational Agency is part of and is inherent in the right to establish a Minority Institution, it was ruled that Section 8(1)(a) and Rule7 in so far as they are made applicable to minority institutions are violative of the fundamental right and to that extent, their validity cannot be upheld. Therefore, according to him, it is not mandatory for any Minority Institution to obtain the sanction and approval from the Government for removal of its employee even though it is true that such approval is a condition precedent in respect of non-minority aided schools. Therefore, in the present case, the respondent/Institution being a Minority Institution, obtaining prior approval or sanction from the respondent/State is not mandatory. This Court is in full agreement with the above submission. 14. However, while coming to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, he is said to have given his remarks expressing his satisfaction over the fairness, the only limited question now remains is whether the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is justified or not. In this perspective, it is seen from the records and submissions that the petitioner has rendered an excellent service of 18 years without any black-mark. It is further seen that though the petitioner was the Head of the School in the capacity as Headmaster, with a deep sense of dedication, he even involved himself in cooking food for the special/disabled children in the School which has only one Cook to prepare the three-time food for all the children. Forgetting his position as the Headmaster, he went to the extent of cleaning up the Toilets and Bathrooms of the special children in order to keep hygienic environment for them. Forgetting his position as the Headmaster, he went to the extent of cleaning up the Toilets and Bathrooms of the special children in order to keep hygienic environment for them. He collected donations for the improvement of the children in the school and when he was called upon to spare the donation for some other school, it seems that misunderstanding arose between the Management and the petitioner, who refused to part with the donation he collected for the Special Children. Within two months, thereafter, he was slapped with the charge memo. The timing of issuance of the charge memo and the conduct of the petitioner writ large on the records shown by both the parties much convince this Court to modify the extreme punishment of removal from service into one of compulsory retirement and for such modification, both sides have expressed their consent. 15. Therefore, keeping in view that the petitioner has put in a long service of 19 years, 9 months and 15 days, with the consent of both parties, the impugned order of removal from service, being grave in nature, has to be modified into one of compulsory retirement, on humanitarian consideration, so that the petitioner will be in a position to receive the service and monetary benefits. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order of removal from service is modified into one of compulsory retirement. Needless to mention that the respondents shall settle the service and monetary benefits, to which the petitioner is entitled to, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.