JUDGMENT : We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The Management of Indira Gandhi Balika Niketan, Senior Higher Secondary School, Ardwata, District Jhunjhunu, has filed this Special Appeal against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 26.07.2005, by which he has dismissed the writ petition, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2002 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, setting aside the termination order of the respondent, and directing reinstatement with full back wages. Learned single Judge, after referring to the facts of the case, held that the scope of interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal is limited, and thus, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the Special Appeal, are that the appellant is an institution aided by the State Government, to the extent of 90% of its financial demand. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in the Institution on 13.12.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 1490-3550. She filed an application in the Tribunal on 11.07.1996 under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), with the averments that the Institution started harassing her by levelling false allegations. Her salary was not paid regularly, and she was not allowed to sign in the attendance register. A notice was published against her with baseless allegation that she had abandoned the service. The Tribunal initially by order dated 04.07.2000, dismissed the application. The order of the Tribunal was challenged in the High Court, which allowed the writ petition on 25.09.2002, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal, with the direction to consider the matter afresh, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. 4. The Tribunal heard the matter and found that there is no provision of relieving an employee, or terminating his/her services on the ground that the employee had abandoned the employment, and thus a disciplinary enquiry was required to be held, in the circumstances, under Section 18 of the Act, in which the employee should have been given adequate opportunity to defend himself/herself. No such disciplinary enquiry was held. The Management decided on its own that the respondent-employee had abandoned the employment, and terminated her from service. 5. No such disciplinary enquiry was held. The Management decided on its own that the respondent-employee had abandoned the employment, and terminated her from service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submits that the present Appeal was admitted, and notices were issued on 18.08.2005 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had left the job herself on 24.02.1996, and that, thereafter, she joined the services in the year 2003, in an other Government school. 6. The operation of the impugned orders were stayed. The matter was, thereafter, taken up on several dates. On 23.02.2007, following orders were passed : "It is informed to us that the respondent had already been selected by the Govt., of Rajasthan and has joined a Govt. School. Under the circumstance, we do not find this appeal of an urgent nature which can be given priority in hearing. Admit on the limited question as to whether the respondent can be given back wages for the period during which she was out of service. Interim order of stay granted earlier, shall remain effective during pendency of this appeal." 7. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 had abandoned the employment. She had no intention to come back. A first information report was lodged, alleging that she has taken away the answer-books of the practical examination. She did not care to attend the duties, even after filing a claim petition in the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent No. 1 stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 26.07.2013. He has relied on Secretary, Akola Taluka Education Society & Anr. v. Shivaji, (2007) (9) SCC 564, in which it was held that the Tribunal should not grant back wages, as a matter of course. Before such an order is passed, the authority, whether judicial, or quasi judicial, must consider all the aspects of the matter. On the facts of the case, in which the school was not getting any aid, and that, the students' strength had declined, the Supreme Court had confined all back wages to 25% only. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that he has in possession of the appointment order, by which the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the Government School, and has now retired on 26.07.2013. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that he has in possession of the appointment order, by which the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the Government School, and has now retired on 26.07.2013. We may observe here that despite obtaining an interim order on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had obtained an employment in a Government School, and her services were confirmed there vide order dated 23.02.2007, the appellant has not filed any affidavit, nor placed on record the order, on the basis of which the writ petition was admitted eight years ago. 10. In absence of any material on record, we cannot set aside the order, or reduce the back wages. 11. Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993, provides as follows: "39. Removal or Dismissal from Service:- (1) The services of an employee appointed temporarily for six months, may be terminated by the management at any time after giving at least one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. Temporary employee, who wishes to resign shall also give at least one month's notice in advance or in lieu thereof deposit or surrender one month's salary to the management. (2) An employee, other than the employee referred to in sub-rule (1), may be removed or dismissed from service on the grounds of insubordination, inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct or any other grounds which makes the employee unsuitable for further retention in service. But the following procedure shall be adopted for the removal or dismissal of an employee:- (a) A preliminary enquiry shall be held on the allegations coming into or brought to the notice of the management against the employee. (b) On the basis of the findings of the preliminary enquiry report, a charge-sheet along with statement of allegations shall be issued to the employee and he shall be asked to submit his reply within a reasonable time. (c) After having perused the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the employee, if any, if the managing committee is of the opinion that a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted, a three member committee shall be constituted by it in which a nominee of the Director of Education shall also be included. (c) After having perused the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the employee, if any, if the managing committee is of the opinion that a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted, a three member committee shall be constituted by it in which a nominee of the Director of Education shall also be included. (d) During the enquiry by such enquiry committee the employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself by means of written statement as well as by leading evidence, if any. (e) The enquiry committee, after completion of the detailed enquiry, shall submit its report to the management committee. (f) If the managing committee, having regard to the findings of the enquiry committee on the charges, is of the opinion that the employee should be removed or dismissed from service, it shall; (i) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the enquiry committee. (ii) give him a notice stating the penalty of removal or dismissal and call upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty. (g) In every case, the records of the enquiry together with a copy of notice given under sub-clause (f)(ii) above and the representation made in response to such notice if any, shall be forwarded by the managing committee to the Director of Education or an officer by authorised him in this behalf, for approval. (h) On receipt of the approval as mentioned in sub-clause (g) above, the managing committee may issue appropriate order of removal or dismissal as the case may be and forward a. copy of such order to the employee concerned and also to the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him in this behalf. (h) On receipt of the approval as mentioned in sub-clause (g) above, the managing committee may issue appropriate order of removal or dismissal as the case may be and forward a. copy of such order to the employee concerned and also to the Director of Education or the officer authorised by him in this behalf. Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply:- (i) To an employee who is removed or dismissed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) Where it is not practicable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of the Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or (iii) Where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that, the services of an employee cannot be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution, the service of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing." 12. We do not find any error of law in the order of the Tribunal, in which it was held that even if the Management takes a plea, while terminating the services of an employee, that the employee had remained absent without any reason, and had obtained employment in a Government School, an enquiry under Section 18 is mandatory. In the enquiry, an employee can establish, by giving a reply and leading evidence, that she had not abandoned the employment, and the circumstances in which she could not work. An employee must be given an opportunity to prove the facts, in which he/she had abandoned the service. In case, the enquiry is not held under Section 18 of the Act, no Management can throw out any employee, who has not been allowed to work, on the ground that he/she had abandoned the service. The abandonment of the service was misconduct, for which an enquiry must be held, before the services of the employee are terminated. The back wages should not ordinarily be allowed as a matter of course, but that does not relieve the appellant from the responsibility of placing such material on record, on which the argument that the back wages should not be allowed, be accepted. 13. The Special Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.