ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. These two petitions have been filed by the employee as well as Management calling in question the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Belagavi in Appeal No. 19 of 1991, dated 7-9-2013, whereunder the Appellate Tribunal has set aside the resolution dated 6-6-1991 passed by the Management whereunder services of the employee came to be terminated and consequently directing the Management to reinstate the employee/appellant to his original post and pay 40% of the arrears of the salary as back wages from 6-6-1991 till date of reinstatement with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- by arriving at a conclusion that the employee is deemed to be in service. W.P. No. 85368 of 2013 is by the Management and W.P. No. 104182 of 2014 is by the employee assailing the above said order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal at Annexures-C and A respectively. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Ravi Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the management, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde appearing for employee and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Pre-University Board perused the impugned order. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. The employer has called in question the impugned order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 19 of 1991 on the following grounds: "(a) Judgment and order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal is against a dead person namely Sri Mahadev P. Bhajantri who was the Secretary of the first petitioner-Society and he had expired on 9-6-2004 and the Secretary of the Society was not made a party to the proceedings; (b) First petitioner-society was not properly represented by the President, Secretary or Principal of the College; (c) Appointment of delinquent employee namely first respondent was purely on temporary basis for one year only and on account of certain acts of omission and commission by him, show-cause notice came to be issued which was not received by him and after publishing the notice through daily newspaper "Samyuktha Karnataka", dated 26-5-1991 resolution came to be passed on 6-6-1991 terminating the services of respondent 1 and said order came to be communicated to him; (d) Order of termination is in accordance with law and as such Tribunal was not justified in directing reinstatement by awarding 40% back wages. Whereas, the employee (hereinafter referred to as "delinquent employee") has sought for grant of 100% back wages on the following grounds: (1) Employer had failed to prove that employee was gainfully employed and as such denial of back wages amounts to punishment; (2) When order of termination has been held as illegal and reinstatement being directed, full back wages ought to have been granted; (3) On account of employee having maintained himself and his family for 22 years would not be a ground to deny 60% back wages." On these grounds learned Counsel appearing for both the parties pray for their respective petitions being allowed. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records following points would arise for consideration in these petitions: "1. Whether order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 7-9-2013 in Appeal No. 19 of 1991 setting aside the resolution passed by the employer dated 6-6-1991 terminating the services of the employee and ordering for his reinstatement with award of 40% back wages suffers from any illegality or material irregularity calling for interference? 2. What order?" 5. In order to adjudicate the points formulated hereinabove it would be necessary to state the factual matrix which has given rise to filing of these two writ petitions and they can be summarised as under: Brief background of the case: 6. Petition in W.P. No. 104182 of 2014 who is the first respondent in W.P. No. 85368 of 2013 namely "delinquent employee" filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belagavi questioning the termination order passed by respondents 1 and 2 contending inter alia that he had been appointed as the Principal of Srimant Bhogaraj Desai Pre-University Arts and Commerce College, Yaragatti in the year 1989 and though probationary period was completed and not being discharged, he was continued in service till his illegal termination by the Management by passing a resolution dated 6-6-1991. Appeal came to be dismissed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal on 15-12-2000 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by this order delinquent employee filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 and on a compromise petition filed it came to be accepted by this Court and by order dated 25-5-2004 writ petition came to be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 7. Being aggrieved by this order delinquent employee filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 and on a compromise petition filed it came to be accepted by this Court and by order dated 25-5-2004 writ petition came to be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 7. However, petitioner in W.P. No. 109445 of 2014 filed a review petition in R.P. No. 424 of 2005 seeking review of the order dated 25-5-2004 passed in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 contending inter alia that persons who had signed the compromise petition as President and Secretary of the petitioner-Society were not the office-bearers and they had played fraud on Court and amongst other grounds they sought for review of the order dated 25-5-2004 passed in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004. After considering the rival contentions review petition came to be allowed by recalling order dated 25-5-2004 passed in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 and W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 was restored to its original file. Said writ petition came to be allowed and impugned order came to be set aside and matter came to be remitted back to the Educational Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law by order dated 8-1-2013 which are impugned in these petitions. 8. On such order of remand being passed Educational Appellate Tribunal permitted both the parties to lead further evidence. However, none of the parties tendered any evidence though opportunity was extended. Tribunal after hearing the arguments addressed by respective learned Advocates appearing for the parties formulated following three points for its consideration: "1. Whether the appeal is in time? 2. If so, whether the appellant has proved that the order of termination passed by the respondent is illegal and vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and liable to be set aside and that is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the memorandum of appeal? 3. What order?" 9. The issue of limitation has been answered in the affirmative namely it has been held that appeal filed by delinquent employee is within the period of limitation. There is no challenge to this finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal by the employer in its present writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 85368 of 2013. 3. What order?" 9. The issue of limitation has been answered in the affirmative namely it has been held that appeal filed by delinquent employee is within the period of limitation. There is no challenge to this finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal by the employer in its present writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 85368 of 2013. Hence, finding recorded on the issue of limitation is not delved upon in this writ petition particularly when there is no ground urged or oral arguments canvassed on this issue. Re: Point No. 1: 10. It was the specific case of delinquent employee before the Appellate Tribunal that he was illegally terminated from services and neither order of termination nor resolution passed by the petitioner-society terminating his services was communicated to him. Educational Appellate Tribunal while considering the issue of limitation has taken note of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 governing the issue of service of notice and communication of such order passed by the Managing Committee on a employee, held if such order is not communicated in the prescribed manner namely as prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 94 which provision is strictly applicable, it has to be necessarily held that the said order which has not been communicated in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 984 to be invalid or ineffective. Having said so, Tribunal has also found that the golden rules of principles of natural justice demands that a termination order passed against employee is required to be communicated by RPAD and in this regard it has referred to catena of decisions and on facts it found that there was no communication of order of termination by the management to the delinquent employee. Said conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal after extensively discussing the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence, conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal after such discussion at paragraphs 20 to 28 of the impugned order requires to be affirmed as being sound and not suffering from any material irregularity. 11. It is the specific stand taken by the Management throughout its pleadings that communication dated 7-6-1991 issued to the delinquent employee is a show-cause notice and not termination order. 11. It is the specific stand taken by the Management throughout its pleadings that communication dated 7-6-1991 issued to the delinquent employee is a show-cause notice and not termination order. If it were to be accepted to be so, resolution dated 6-6-1991 terminating the services of delinquent employee will have to be necessarily held as predecisional, inasmuch as show-cause notice was required to be preceded before termination and not vice versa. It is to be further noticed that Management has contended that there were several show-cause notices issued to the delinquent employee and on account of his refusal to accept it or not receiving the said notice, Management was preforced to publish the notice in Kannada newspaper "Samyuktha Karnataka" on 26-5-1991 and thereafter services of appellant came to be terminated by resolution dated 6-6-1991. This fact was required to be substantiated by the employer. Appellate Tribunal though extended opportunity to the employer to tender evidence, for reasons best known evidence was not tendered. None were examined on behalf of the management. At this stage it would be apt to address the issue raised by Sri Ravi Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for management which is to the effect that persons who claim to be office-bearers of the first petitioner-society namely Sri Hanamant and Sri Mahadev P. Bhajantri had colluded with the delinquent employee and as such these petitioners were not aware of the proceeding so as to defend the order of termination before Tribunal requires to be considered with circumspection for reasons more than one; firstly it requires to be noticed that those two persons whom petitioners herein allege had colluded with delinquent employee namely Sri Hanamant and Sri Mahadev P. Bhajantri had entered into a compromise with the delinquent employee in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 and said compromise recorded by this Court was subsequently rejected and that is how writ petition was heard on merits and matter came to be remanded to Education Appellate Tribunal for being adjudicated afresh. Hence, Education Appellate Tribunal had disposed of the matter afresh which is impugned in this writ petition. In fact, these two persons had filed objections in the appeal defending the order of termination of the delinquent employee. It is also not in dispute that delinquent employee impleaded Sri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik as respondent 5 in the appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, Education Appellate Tribunal had disposed of the matter afresh which is impugned in this writ petition. In fact, these two persons had filed objections in the appeal defending the order of termination of the delinquent employee. It is also not in dispute that delinquent employee impleaded Sri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik as respondent 5 in the appeal before the Tribunal. Obviously to ensure that no technical plea is being raised by the Management and having noted the fact that said Sri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik had appeared in Review Petition No. 424 of 2005 and it was he who presented the said review petition representing the first petitioner-society as its Secretary. Tribunal had brought him on record in appeal as respondent 5. Hence, said person came to be arrayed as respondent 5 and he was the Secretary of first petitioner-Society at that time even according to petitioner. Hence, first petitioner cannot contend it was not able to defend its right or defend the order of dismissal passed against delinquent employee effectively. Secondly, said Sri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik who had been arrayed as fifth respondent was also represented by learned Counsel and incidentally Counsel who represented Sri Bhimanagouda Ramachandra Naik did not represent two persons who then claimed to be the office-bearers of first petitioner-Society and who had entered into compromise petition with the delinquent employee. Thirdly, present petitioners i.e., petitioners 1 and 3 who claim to be the President and the Principal were aware of these proceedings and they were also fighting the litigation before Civil Court which has been an off shoot of two rival groups claiming right to manage and control the first petitioner-society. For these myriad reasons petitioners cannot be heard to contend that order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal which is impugned in the present writ petition was not within their knowledge. Last, but not the least they have not contended in the writ petition that Sriyuths Hanamant and Mahadev P. Bhajantri have not defended the order of dismissal passed against the delinquent employee. In that view of the matter, contention raised by Sri Ravi Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for Management about impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice or it is prejudicial to the interest of first petitioner-society requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection and accordingly it stands rejected. 12. In that view of the matter, contention raised by Sri Ravi Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for Management about impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice or it is prejudicial to the interest of first petitioner-society requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection and accordingly it stands rejected. 12. It is an undisputed fact that delinquent employee has been terminated from service without conducting any enquiry. In fact show-cause notice relied upon very heavily by the management dated 24-5-1991 which has also been extracted in the impugned order at paragraph 34 has been rightly held by the Tribunal as even remotely suggesting that it is a show-cause notice issued to the delinquent employee, inasmuch as it does not disclose the statement of imputation made against the delinquent employee and the reasons as to why the management wants to terminate his services. At the cost of repetition it requires to be noticed that management has stood to its ground throughout contending that order of termination was passed on 6-6-1991 by passing a resolution. However, in the subsequent pleadings before the Appellate Tribunal i.e., after order of remand came to be passed in W.P. No. 3429 of 2004 additional objections have been filed on 12-7-2013 and at paragraph 3 it has contended by the management that delinquent employee was terminated on 8-6-1991 and it was preceded by show-cause notice issued on 7-6-1991. However, order of termination or dismissal which came to be produced before the Tribunal by management is dated 6-6-1991. Thus, when management has taken a consistent stand that it had terminated the services of delinquent employee on 6-6-1991 the question that would arise is, as to what is the effect of show-cause notice dated 7-6-1991 which was issued subsequent to the order of termination. The answer will have to be necessarily that said show-cause notice is a post decisional show-cause notice since order of termination having been passed, question of calling upon delinquent employee to show cause for his alleged proposed termination does not arise. Thus, alleged show-cause notice dated 7-6-1991 is only an empty formality and it does not have any evidentiary value. As rightly observed by the Tribunal it would amount to putting the horse behind the cart. Thus, alleged show-cause notice dated 7-6-1991 is only an empty formality and it does not have any evidentiary value. As rightly observed by the Tribunal it would amount to putting the horse behind the cart. On account of there being no enquiry conducted before termination of petitioners' services, Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that order of termination is illegal as it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Said finding arrived by the Tribunal after succinctly and extensively discussing material evidence tendered by parties and also by considering rival contentions does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. There is no infirmity in the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 13. Now turning my attention to the rival contentions raised by learned Advocates appearing for the parties which relates to grant of back wages, it requires to be noticed that Tribunal has held that though delinquent employee has not stated in so many words as to the fact that he is not gainfully employed during the period of termination, it has awarded 40% as back wages taking into consideration that delinquent employee cannot be construed to be in penury or without avocation inasmuch as during interregnum period of 22 years i.e., from date of termination till date of order came to be passed by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the same, petitioner was able to maintain himself and his family would itself be a pointer to the fact that he was financially capable of maintaining himself and his family. As such, Appellate Tribunal has awarded 40% back wages to be paid by way of arrears. Tribunal to arrive at said conclusion has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan v Daya Shankar Rai and Another : AIR 2005 SC 2371 : 2005 SCC (L and S) 631 : 2005 AIR SCW 2646 : (2005)5 5CC 124. Said finding arrived at by the Tribunal to award 40% back wages is based on sound principles and as such this Court does not propose to entertain the rival contentions raised either by management or delinquent employee in this regard. In other words order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal requires to be affirmed and accordingly it is hereby affirmed. 14. It is also contended by the management that the salary that was paid to delinquent employee was Rs. In other words order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal requires to be affirmed and accordingly it is hereby affirmed. 14. It is also contended by the management that the salary that was paid to delinquent employee was Rs. 2,800/- per month when order of termination was passed. It is not in dispute that delinquent employee not a permanent employee or had been admitted to grant-in-aid by the Government. Thus, to avoid any confusion or ambiguity insofar as interpretation of grant of back wages it is made clear that delinquent employee would be entitled for 40% back wages based on the last paid or drawn salary which was undisputedly Rs. 2,800/- per month. 15. Tribunal after having set aside the order of termination has also reserved liberty to the management to take appropriate action against the delinquent employee on the alleged imputation by following procedure contemplated under Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. This also requires to be affirmed and it is to be held that management would be at liberty to proceed from the stage of show-cause notice said to have been issued to delinquent employee on 7-6-1991 by reserving liberty to delinquent employee to reply to said show-cause notice without waiting for any further show-cause notice being issued. However, management would also be at liberty to issue any fresh show-cause notice if thought fit and said show-cause notice shall be duly served on the delinquent employee and the matter be proceeded. Accordingly Point No. 1 formulated hereinabove is answered in favour of delinquent employee and against the management by affirming the order of Educational Appellate Tribunal. Re: Point No. 2: For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. W.P. Nos. 85368 of 2013 and 104182 of 2014 are hereby dismissed. 2. Order passed by Educational Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 19 of 1991, dated 7-9-2013 Annexure-C is hereby affirmed. 3. Delinquent employee would be at liberty to submit his reply to the show-cause notice dated 7-6-1991 or if fresh show-cause notice is issued by the management to delinquent employee for which liberty has been reserved hereinabove, management would be at liberty to proceed against delinquent employee in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Rules made thereunder. 4. All contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.