ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 20.4.2015. 2. Facts of the case are as under. That respondents No.2, 3 and 4 Dashpur Vidyalaya invited applications for appointment of Teacher in the year 2008. The petitioner being qualified for the post of Teacher applied and was called for interview on 14.7.2008. After undergoing regular selection process petitioner was appointed as Teacher w.e.f. 15.7.2008 and she was offered salary of Rs.3,500/- per month with 12% deduction of provident fund. The appointment order was temporary up to 30.4.2009 and liable to be terminated without notice at any stage when the work is not found satisfactory. In pursuant to the appointment order petitioner joined and started work as Teacher and the appointment order was continued from time to time. Appreciation letter was issued to the petitioner. Apart from teaching petitioner was directed to perform other duties like publication of school magazine etc. While performing the duties petitioner has pursued M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry. All of a sudden she was called by the Principal and handed over termination order on 20.4.2015 and asked not to go to her class. The petitioner submitted the legal notice, made complaints to the Human Rights Commission, Government authorities etc. When no relief was granted to her she filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the termination order on the ground that same is stigmatic and passed without giving show cause notice to her and without following the due process of law. 3. This Court issued notice to the respondents and respondents filed return along with preliminary submissions. In return it is submitted that Dashpur Vidyalaya is being run by the society called Dashpur Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti which is a registered society under the provisions of the Society Registration Act. The school is not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government, therefore, same is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, hence writ petition is not maintainable. On merit respondents tried to justify their action on the ground that petitioner has become nuisance in the school premises, her behaviour towards students, colleagues and Principal was not cordial and she was not ready to change her behaviour, therefore, management had no option but to terminate her services. On merit respondents tried to justify their action on the ground that petitioner has become nuisance in the school premises, her behaviour towards students, colleagues and Principal was not cordial and she was not ready to change her behaviour, therefore, management had no option but to terminate her services. It is further stated that disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated in writ petition, hence petition is liable to be dismissed with direction to petitioner to resort to remedy under the civil law. 4. That Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4 has raised the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that respondent is a private body and is not a ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not amenable to the writ petition. The society is not receiving grant in aid from the State Government, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued. Had it been the case of the students writ would lie but it is a case of termination of services of a Teacher, therefore, she is having remedy to approach the civil Court. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance to the decision reported in (2015)4 SCC 670 (K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and others). In reply to the preliminary objection Shri Verma placed reliance over the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012)12 SCC 331, and submitted that writ is maintainable. He has further placed reliance over the affiliation bye-laws issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the provisions of the M.P. Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam, 1975) and submitted that the school is run by the respondents No.2 to 4 is a recognized school governed under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1975, therefore, writ can be issued. 5. That the apex Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 , has held that if the institution is imparting education to the students subjected to the rules and regulation of the affiliating university, their activities are closely supervised by the University/authorities. The employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, no purely of private character. Paras 15, 17 and 20 are reproduced below : 15. The Law relating to mandamus has made the most spectacular advance. It may be recalled that the remedy by prerogative writs in England started with very limited scope and suffered from many procedural disadvantages. To overcome the difficulties, Lord Gardiner (the Lord Chancellor) in pursuance of section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act, 1965, requested the Law Commission “to review the existing remedies for the judicial control of administrative acts and omission with a view to evolving a simpler and more effective procedure”. The Law Commission made their report in March 1976 (Law Com No. 73). It was implemented by Rules of Court (Order 53) in 1977 and given statutory force in 1981 by Section 31 of to Supreme Court Act 1981. It combined all the former remedies into one proceeding called Judicial Review. Lord Denning explains the scope of this “judicial review” : “At one stroke the courts could grant whatever relief was appropriate. Not only certiorari and mandamus, but also declaration and injunction. Even damages. The procedure was much more simple and expeditious. Just a summons instead of a writ. No formal pleadings. The evidence was given by affidavit. As a rule no crossexamination, no discovery, and so forth. But there were important safeguards. In particular, in order to qualify, the applicant had to get the leave of a Judge. The Statute is phrased in flexible terms. It gives scope for development. It uses the words “having regard to”. Those words are very indefinite. The result is that the courts are not bound hand and foot by the previous law. They are to ‘have regard to’ it. So the previous law as to who are -- and who are not -- public authorities, is not absolutely binding. Nor is the previous law as to the matters in respect of which relief may be granted. This means that the judges can develop the public law as they think best. That they have done and are doing.” (See -- The Closing Chapter -- by Rt. Hon Lord Denning p.122). 17. Article 226 reads : “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. This means that the judges can develop the public law as they think best. That they have done and are doing.” (See -- The Closing Chapter -- by Rt. Hon Lord Denning p.122). 17. Article 226 reads : “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories direc- tions, orders or writs, including (Writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part II and for any other purpose. xxx xxx xxx xxx 20. In Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual and others [1969]3 SCR 773], this Court said that a mandamus can issue against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the Statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. It was observed (at p.778) (of 3 SCR) : (At pp.1309-10 of AIR) : “It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official or a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their under- takings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities. (See : Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed. Vol.II p.52 and onwards).” 6. The aforesaid judgment was again considered and followed in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (supra), and again reiterated that private body is performing private functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. The writ can be issued to them. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below : 12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The writ can be issued to them. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced below : 12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust (supra), there can be no doubt that even a purely private body, where the State has no control over its internal affairs, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Provided, of course, the private body is performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State Authorities. 13. In the aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under : “20. The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. 22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.” We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition.” The aforesaid observations have been repeated and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court including the judgment in Unni Krishnan and Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra), brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Parikh. 14. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments of this Court, the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained on the proposition that the writ petition would not be maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational institution. The appellant had specifically taken the plea that the respondents perform public functions, i.e., providing education to children in their institutions throughout India. 17.At this stage, we are informed that the State of Punjab has set up a Tribunal, namely, Punjab School Education Tribunal, Mohali, which is empowered to entertain appeals even where orders have been passed by unaided private educational institutions. In that view of the matter, the remedy of appeal is clearly available to the appellant. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal before the aforementioned Education Tribunal. 7. In that view of the matter, the remedy of appeal is clearly available to the appellant. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal before the aforementioned Education Tribunal. 7. Even in the judgment of apex Court relied by Shri Bhatnagar in the case of K.K. Saksena (supra), in para 38 has held that the remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available to the Teachers after placing reliance over the case of Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others (supra). Paras 37 and 38 is reproduced below : 37. Further, the Court explained in para 20 in Anadi Mukta Sadguru case that the term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, would receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12, inasmuch as Article 12 was relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 31, whereas Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also nonfundamental rights. What is relevant is the dicta of the Court that the term “authority” appearing in Article 226 of the Constitution would cover any other person or body performing public duty. The guiding factor, therefore, is the nature of duty imposed on such a body, namely, public duty to make it exigible to Article 226. 38. In K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg. This Court again emphasised that” (SCC p.572, para 4) : “4.....when there is an interest created by the Government in an institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, the teachers who impart the education get an element of public interest in performance of their duties.” In such a situation, remedy provided under Article 226 would be available to the teachers. The aforesaid two cases pertain to educational institutions and the function of imparting education was treated as the performance of public duty, that too by those bodies where the aided institutions were discharging the said functions like Government institutions and the interest was created by the Government in such institutions to imparteducation. (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the above, writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable, hence preliminary objection is rejected and now I shall consider the case of the petitioner on merit. 9. (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the above, writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable, hence preliminary objection is rejected and now I shall consider the case of the petitioner on merit. 9. That the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 14.7.2008 though the appointment was temporary but it was continued from time to time which is evident from the experience certificate issued by the respondents. It is also not disputed that before passing the termination order dated 24.12.2015 the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted. In the imputgned order dated 20.4.2015 certain allegations have been made against the petitioner. The order is stigmatic in nature. In the return filed by respondents No.2 and 3 they have also not stated that before passing the impugned order any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on the ground that which has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Now the question is whether the services of the petitioner are governed under any rules or regulations which provide procedure to be followed before passing the order of punishment. The State of Madhya Pradesh has enacted a law called the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975. The definition of employees include teachers and every other employee working in a recognized school. Section 2(d) defines the recognized school means school recognized under sections 4 and 16 of the Adhiniyam. The present school of respondents No.1 to 4 is recognized under sub-section (2) of section 4 as after commencement of this Act all the schools deemed to have been recognized under the Act. Chapter 3 of this Act contemplates that framing of regulation by the State Government. Sub-section (2) of section 9 provides that no existing employee or employee of a recognized school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his services be otherwise terminated save in accordance with the rules made in this behalf. Against the termination the remedy of appeal is provided to the Tribunal constituted under section 11 but in the State of Madhya Pradesh no such Tribunal has been constituted so far. That under this Act of 1975 a protection has been granted to the employees of the recognized schools that their services are not liable to be terminated without following the procedure in accordance with law. That under this Act of 1975 a protection has been granted to the employees of the recognized schools that their services are not liable to be terminated without following the procedure in accordance with law. Under section 23 again State Government was liable to frame code of conduct for employees and disciplinary action to be taken for violation thereof but unfortunately no such rules have been framed under this Act. The services of the petitioner is governed under the Act of 1975 which gives statutory protection to her dispute that she was removed without following the procedure in accordance with law. Had the law has been framed by the Govt. that certainly would have provided procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice which the Constitution of this country guarantees to every citizen. 11. That the Central Board of Secondary Education has framed affiliation bye-laws which mandates that schools should have well defined condition of service as per norms of the State Government. Under Chapter 6 society and the company as the case may be running the school have been directed to laid down the condition of service as per the norms of the CBSC/Government in respect of promotion, appointment and termination of employees. Under clause 21 a protection is given that the management committee shall ensure that the terms and conditions of service and other rules governed are strictly adhered to. Clause 21 reads as under : 21. Powers and Functions of the School Management Committee 1. Subject to overall control of the Society/Trust/# Company Registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 the School Managing Committee shall have the following powers/functions: (i) It shall have the power to supervise the activities of the school for its smooth functioning. (ii) It will work according to the specific directions given by the Society regarding admission policy. However, admissions will be made as per merit without discretion of caste/creed/religion and region. (iii) It shall look into the welfare of the teachers and employees of the school. (iv) It shall evolve both short-term and long-term programmes for the improvement of the school. (v) It shall have the powers for making appointment of teachers and non teaching staff. (vi) It shall exercise financial powers beyond those delegated to the Principal within the budgetary provision of the school. (iv) It shall evolve both short-term and long-term programmes for the improvement of the school. (v) It shall have the powers for making appointment of teachers and non teaching staff. (vi) It shall exercise financial powers beyond those delegated to the Principal within the budgetary provision of the school. (vii) It shall have the power to take stock of academic programmes and progress of the school without jeopardising the academic freedom of Principal. (viii) It shall guide the Principal to maintain tone and discipline in the school. (ix) It shall ensure that the norms given in the Act of the State and by the CBSE regarding terms and conditions of service and other rules governing recognition/affiliation of the school are strictly adhered to. (x) It should ensure that the school gets furniture, science equipment, library books and other teaching aids and the requisite sports material in adequate quantity and on time. (xi) It shall exercise powers to take disciplinary action against staff. Rule amended in the Affiliation committee’s meeting held on 16th May 2007 and approved by the Governing Body at its meeting held on 29thJune 2007. (xii) It shall have powers to sanction leave to the Head of the Institution including casual leave. (xiii) It shall ensure that no financial irregularity is committed or any irregular procedure with regard to admission/examinations is adopted. (xiv) It shall have the power to propose to the Society rates of tuition fees and other annual charges and also review the budget of the school presented by the Principal for forwarding the same to Society for approval. (xv) The Managing Committee will meet at least twice in an academic session. 12. Under section 24 mandates that every school affiliated with the Board shall frame service rules for its employees which reads as under : 24. Short Title. -- 1. Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U.T., if the Act makes adoption of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections. 2. Service Contract will be entered with each employee as per the provision in the Education Act of the State/U.T. or as given in Appendix III, if not obligatory as per the State Education Act. 13. Clause 44 provides for disciplinary procedure which reads as under: 44. Disciplinary Procedure Suspension. -- 1. 2. Service Contract will be entered with each employee as per the provision in the Education Act of the State/U.T. or as given in Appendix III, if not obligatory as per the State Education Act. 13. Clause 44 provides for disciplinary procedure which reads as under: 44. Disciplinary Procedure Suspension. -- 1. The school Managing Committee may place an employee under suspension where : (a) The disciplinary proceedings against him are contempted or pending; or (b) A case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; or (c) He/she is charged with embezzlement; or (d) He/she is charged with cruelty/$ physical punishment or mental harassment towards any student or any employee of the school; or (e) He/she is charged with misbehavior towards any parent, guardian student or employee of the school; or $ Rule amended in the Affiliation committee’s meeting held on 17thJune 2011 and approved by the Governing Body at its meeting held on 22ndJune 2011. Provided further no such immediate suspension or the suspension made with the approval of the Chairman of the Committee shall remain in force for more than a period of fifteen days from the date of suspension unless it has been communicated to the committee and approved by it before the expiry of the said period. Where the intention to suspend or the immediate suspension of an employee is communicated to the committee, it may if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such suspension accord its approval to such suspension. (f) He/she is charged with a breach of any other Code of Conduct. 2. No order for suspension shall remain in force for more than six months unless the Committee, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing directs the continuation of the suspension beyond the period of six months. 3. Where the Principal/Manager intends to suspend any of the employee such intention shall be communicated to the Chairman of the School, Managing Committee and no such suspension shall be made except with prior approval of the Chairman of the Committee provided that the Principal/Manager may suspend an employee with immediate effect and without prior approval of the Chairman of the Committee if he/she 44 satisfied that such immediate suspension is necessary by reason of the gross misconduct within the meaning of the Code of Conduct or involves moral turpitude. 4. 4. An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the “School Managing Committee : (a) with effect from the date of the detention, if he/she is detained in custody for a period exceeding forty eight hours on a charge of an offence which in the opinion of the committee involves moral turpitude; b) with effect from the date of his/her conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence involving in the opinion of the Committee oral turpitude he/she is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours ! and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service consequent on such conviction. 5. Where penalty or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or rendered void, in consequence of, or, by a decision of a Court of law, and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold further inquiry against such employee on the same allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement was originally imposed such an employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the committee from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders; Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on to technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. 6. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made in these rules shall continue to remain in force until it is modified orrevoked by the Committee. ! Explanation : The period of forty eight hours referred to in this rule shall be computed from the commencement of detention or conviction as the case may be add for this purpose intermittent periods of detention shall be taken into account. 7. Where an employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the Committee may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the employee shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any such proceeding. 8. 7. Where an employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the Committee may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the employee shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any such proceeding. 8. An order of suspension made deemed to have been made under these rules may, at any time be modified or revoked by the Committee. 9. Subsistence allowance. -- An employee under suspension shall, in relation to the period of suspension, be entitled to the following payments, namely : (a) A subsistence allowance at an amount equal to one half of the pay last drawn by him/her and in addition to such pay, dearness allowance at an appropriate to be paid in the same manner as the salary; (b) Any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the employee was in receipt on the date of suspension. Provided that the employee shall not be entitled to the compensatory allowance unless the Committee is satisfied that the employee continued to meet the expenditure for which such compensatory allowance is admissible. Provided that where the period of suspension is extended beyond three months, the Committee shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for the period subsequent to the period of first three months as follows : (i) The amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding fifty percent of the subsistence allowance admissible for the period of the first three months if in the opinion of the Committee to be recorded in writing, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons not directly attributable to the employee. (ii) The amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the subsistence admissible during the period of first three months, if in the opinion of the appointing authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged, due to reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the suspended employee. (iii) No payment of subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee furnishes a certificate to the effect that he/she is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. (iii) No payment of subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee furnishes a certificate to the effect that he/she is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. Provided that in the case of an employee dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he/she is deemed be placed or continue to be under suspension, he/she shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which his/her earnings during such period or periods as the case may be fall short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him/her. Where the subsistence and other allowances admissible to him/her are equal to or less than the amount earned by him/her nothing in this proviso shall apply to him/her. 10. Where suspended employee is exonerated after disciplinary proceedings or where any criminal prosecution against a suspended employee ends with an honourable acquittal, the salaries and allowances of such employees minus the subsistent allowance received by him/her shall be paid to him/her from the date on which he/she was suspended. 14. Clause 45 provides penalties which reads as under : 45. Penalties. -- ( 1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, including the breach of one or more of the provisions of the Code of Conduct may be imposed upon an employee. (a) Minor penalties : (i) censure; (ii) recovery from pay, the whole or any part of any pecuniary loss caused to the school by negligence or breach of orders; (iii) withholding of increment of pay (b) ! Major Penalties : (i) reduction in rank; (ii) compulsory retirement (iii) removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in any school run by the Society. 15. Clause 46 prescribes imposing minor penalties and clause 47 provides for major penalties which read as under : 46. Major Penalties : (i) reduction in rank; (ii) compulsory retirement (iii) removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in any school run by the Society. 15. Clause 46 prescribes imposing minor penalties and clause 47 provides for major penalties which read as under : 46. Procedure of imposing minor penalty no order in case of a minor penalty shall be made except after informing the employee of the proposal to take action against him/her and the allegation on which such action is proposed to be taken and except after giving to the employee an opportunity to make any representation against the proposed action. 47. Procedure for imposing major penalty. -- 1. No order imposing on any employee any major penalty shall be made except after an inquiry is ! Explanation : The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely (a) Retirement of the employee in accordance with the provisions relating to superannuation, retirement; (b) Replacement of a teacher who has not qualified on the date of his/her appointment by a qualified one; (c) Discharge of an employee appointed on a short-term officiating vacancy caused by the grant of leave suspension or the like. held as far as may be, in the manner specified below : (a) The disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the inquiry is proposed to be held and a copy of the charges together with the statement of the allegations on which they are based shall be furnished to employee and he/she shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority but not later than two weeks, a written statement of his/her defence and also to state whether he/she desires to be heard in person; (b) On receipt of the written statement of defence,or where no such statement is received within the specified time, the disciplinary authority may itself make inquiry into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint an inquiry officer for the purpose; (c) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings on each of the charges together with the reasons thereof; (d) The disciplinary authority shall consider the report of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge and if the disciplinary authority is of opinion that any of the major penalties should be imposed it shall : (i) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, where an inquiry has been made by such officer; (ii) give him/her notice in writing stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him/her and calling upon him/her to submit within the specified time, not exceeding two weeks, such representation as he/she may wish to make against the proposed action, (iii) on receipt of the representation if any, made by the employee, the disciplinary authority shall determine what penalty, if any should be imposed on the employee and communicate its tentative decision to impose the penalty to the Committee for its prior approval; (iv) after considering the representation, made by the employee against the penalty, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings as to the penalty, which it proposes to impose on the employee and send its findings and decision to the Committee for its approval and while doing so the disciplinary authority shall furnish to the employee all relevant records of the case including the statement of allegations, charges framed against the employee, representation made by the employee, a copy of the inquiry report, where such inquiry was made and the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. 2. No order with regard to the imposition of a major penalty shall be made by the disciplinary authority except after the receipt of the approval of the Committee. 16. It is clear from the aforesaid bye-law that respondents No.2 to 4 are duty bound under the affiliation bye laws to have service conditions for their employees. In the State of Madhya Pradesh neither State Government framed the service rules nor private school has framed it for their employees. The petitioner whose services have been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the law without opportunity of hearing and without regular enquiry and in view of the law laid down by the apex Court as mentioned above the writ Court cannot deny the remedy and justice to the petitioner to uphold the action of the respondents in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, I have no option but to set aside the order dated 20.4.2015. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages. 17. That as per information made available by National Informatic Centre in the entire State of M.P 1,22,978 private schools (83948 Primary + 3043 Middle School + 3845 Higher Secondary School + 4752 High School) are imparting education to the students, only few of them are getting grant from the State Government and they are governed under the statutory provisions of the the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Adhyapkon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979 The employees and the Teachers working in the said services of aided educational institutions are governed under the Adhiniyam of 1979 and having certain protections but most of the private educational institutions school or colleges which are not getting any grant from the State Government, their employees and teachers have no remedy or protection. There is no interference from the State Govt. over these institutions. They enjoy impunity from interference from the government. The State Governmemt has framed Adhiniyam in the year 1975 to meet out this situation but unfortunately no rules have been framed therein. There is a provision under section 11 for constitution of Tribunal where the employees of school can file appeal against the disciplinary action taken by the management. They enjoy impunity from interference from the government. The State Governmemt has framed Adhiniyam in the year 1975 to meet out this situation but unfortunately no rules have been framed therein. There is a provision under section 11 for constitution of Tribunal where the employees of school can file appeal against the disciplinary action taken by the management. In the case of Anadi Mukta Sadguru (supra), the apex Court has observed that only the State of Punjab has set up Tribunals in Punjab which is empowered to entertain appeals against the action of the management of a private institution. That to achieve 100% literacy in the State, there is mushroom growth of educational institutions. The educational institutions are running like industry with huge infrastructre like five star facilities but there is no service conditions available to their staff. Their services are in the hands of management. They work under Hire and Fire theory of management. Time has come there should be law like Standing Orders, Industrial Disputes Act and Court like Labour Court/Industrial Court for them. Apex Court has held that school is an industry, therefore, staff should have protection like workman under the Industrial Law. Under section 11 of the Adhiniyam of 1975 Labour Court can be notified as Tribual for the staff of private schools. But in the State of M.P despite provisions under the 1975 Adhiniyam there is no such Tribunals, therefore, this Court hope and trust that the State Governmemt shall consider to constitute a Tribunal under section 11 of the 1975 Adhiniyam. Section 11 of the 1975 Adhiniyam reads as under : 11.Tribunals. -- (1) The State Government may, by notification, constitute such number of Tribunals as it may deem fit for such area as may be specified in the notification. (2) The Tribunal constituted under sub-section (1) shall be known as the School Tribunal of the Area for which it is constituted. (3) The Tribunal shall consist of a single person who shall be the presiding Officer of the Tribunal. (4) The qualifications, term of office and conditions of service of the presiding officer of the Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The Tribunal shall consist of a single person who shall be the presiding Officer of the Tribunal. (4) The qualifications, term of office and conditions of service of the presiding officer of the Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) If any vacancy, other than a temporary absence, occurs in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, the State Government shall appoint any person, in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules made thereunder, to fill the vacancy and the proceedings may be continued before the Tribunal from the stage at which the vacancy is filled. (6) The State Government shall make available to the Tribunal such staff as may be necessary in the discharge of its functions under this Act. (7) All expenses incurred in connection with the Tribunal shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. (8) The Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions including the place or places at which it shall hold its sittings. (9) The Tribunal shall for the purpose of an appeal preferred under this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Court of appeal by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No.V of 1908) and shall also have the power to stay the operation of the order appealed against on such term as it may think fit. 18. Schools which are imparting education from nursery to class 9th are not affiliated either by Board of Secondary Education or CBSC but High School and Higher Secondary School are affiliated and recognized either by Board of Secondary Education (BOSE) or Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). That the Central Board of Secondary Education has also framed bye-laws for affiliation. This bye-law also mandates that there should be a code of conduct for the employees and service rules but like the respondent No.4 there are so many more schools in the State of M.P having no service rules for their employees. The employees are appointed and terminated at the whims of the management. Statutory benefits like Provident Fund, Medical facility, leave etc. The employees are appointed and terminated at the whims of the management. Statutory benefits like Provident Fund, Medical facility, leave etc. which is admissible to the Governmemt Teachers are being denied to them, therefore, CBSE and BOSE should ensure that before granting affiliation they should ensure that there should be conduct rules and disciplinary service rules in the institution for their staff contemplated in their bye-laws. 19. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, CBSE and BOSE for information and compliance.