JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner Management has assailed the order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Schools, Gandhinagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section vide appointment order dated 21.06.1995. Since respondent No.3 was involved in an immoral act of writing love letter to his student, a show cause notice was issued on him on 20.02.2010. It is pertinent to note that one student – Miss Madhavi made a complaint to the Principal on 05.02.2010 and handed over the letter written by respondent No.3 to her. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, the petitioner Management decided to initiate action against respondent No.3. He was summoned by the petitioner Management for seeking his explanation to such immoral conduct. Respondent No.3 on 09.02.2010 confessed about his conduct. He has also confessed that the said letter was also written by him to Miss Madhvi. In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner Management issued the aforesaid show cause notice to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 asked for time for submitting his reply vide letters dated 26.02.2010 and 03.03.2010. The petitioner Management accordingly extended the time limit. Respondent No.3, thereafter asked for leave without pay for 180 days from 18.02.2010 and 16.08.2010, by his letter dated 17.02.2010, but respondent No.3 did not give any reply to the show cause notice. 3. Instead of giving reply to the show cause notice, respondent No.3 approached the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad by preferring Original Application No.25/2010 praying for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid show cause notice dated 20.02.2010. The Tribunal, on 11.03.2010 passed interim order against termination of respondent No.3 and observed that he may not be terminated without following legal procedure. The petitioner Management thereafter filed Misc. Application No.2 of 2010 in Original Application No.25/2010 for modifying the order dated 11.03.2010. By the order dated 06.04.2010, the Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioner Management for taking action against respondent No.3 in accordance with law. By the letter dated 22.04.2010 the petitioner Management asked for proposal from the respondent-Commissioner to dismiss respondent No.3 from service. 4. Application No.2 of 2010 in Original Application No.25/2010 for modifying the order dated 11.03.2010. By the order dated 06.04.2010, the Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioner Management for taking action against respondent No.3 in accordance with law. By the letter dated 22.04.2010 the petitioner Management asked for proposal from the respondent-Commissioner to dismiss respondent No.3 from service. 4. In view of the confession of respondent No.3, the petitioner Management sent a proposal to respondent No.1 Commissioner for dismissing respondent No.3, however, the respondent-Commissioner rejected the said proposal on the ground of not holding a departmental inquiry before terminating respondent No.3. Thus, the respondent-Commissioner declined the approval of the petitioner Management for terminating respondent No.3 from service, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management has submitted that the respondent-Commissioner grossly erred in not granting the approval on the ground of non-holding of the departmental proceedings, since the same was not required as respondent No.3 had confessed to his guilt. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Pineshbhai Amrutlal Patel Vs. Education Officer & Ors., 2017 (1) G.L.R. 63 for the proposition of law that in case of admission of guilt by an employee, no regular departmental inquiry is required. He has stated that thus, though an opportunity of hearing was given to respondent No.3, he has chosen not to respond to the show cause notice and has straightway approached the Tribunal. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent State authorities has not denied the fact of immoral act committed by respondent No.3. He has stated that the respondent-Commissioner has rightly declined the proposal of the petitioner Management. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the record of the case. 8. Respondent No.3 was serving as a teacher in a girl’s school, and he was expected of maintaining the highest degree of integrity and morality while working as a teacher in the girl’s school. Respondent No.3 was also issued a show cause notice dated 20.02.2010 by the petitioner Management calling upon him to give his explanation to such misconduct. No explanation is tendered by the, respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was also issued a show cause notice dated 20.02.2010 by the petitioner Management calling upon him to give his explanation to such misconduct. No explanation is tendered by the, respondent No.3. The respondent Commissioner in the impugned order has also observed that respondent No.3 has confessed to the charges leveled against him. The respondent-Commissioner only on the ground of non-holding of departmental proceedings has declined to grant the approval to the petitioner Management for dismissing respondent No.3 from service. The respondent-Commissioner has relied upon section 36(1)(b) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972. Section 36(1)(b) there of reads as under: “(b) the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, has been approved in writing by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Board: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any person who is appointed for a temporary period only.” Section 36(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act provides that the manager has to give a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to a teacher. In the present case, the petitioner Management had issued a show cause notice dated 20.02.2010 to respondent No.3 but he has chosen not to give reply to the same. The said fact is not at all considered by the respondent-Commissioner while passing the impugned order. This Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Pineshbhai Amrutlal Patel (supra) while dealing with such contention has held that when the misconduct was admitted by the teacher, there was no need to have further oral evidence to establish the same. Thus, the petitioner Management was not left with any option but to ask for dismissal of respondent No.3 since he had not responded to the show cause notice issued to him. In the judgement rendered in the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Hukam Chand, (2009) 11 S.C.C. 222 the Supreme Court has held thus: “On the other hand, if there is an admission of misconduct, or if the employee pleads guilty in respect of the charge, or if the employee consents to the alteration of any terms and condition of service, or where the employee himself seeks the alteration in the conditions of service, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, or altering the conditions of service with consent, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate principles of natural justice.” 9. The aforenoted observation of the Supreme Court instructs that even opportunity to show cause is not necessary if an employee is found guilty of misconduct on admission. In the proposal dated 22.04.2010, the petitioner Management has in detail referred to the show cause notice dated 20.02.2010 given to respondent No.3 and the time sought for by respondent No.3 for filing reply to such show cause notice, but subsequently he failed to do so. Learned advocate for the petitioner Management has submitted that subsequently respondent No.3 was dismissed from service by the order dated 13.10.2014 on the ground of remaining absent. The said order was set aside by the respondent-Commissioner of Schools on 28.12.2014. The said order the respondent-Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner Management before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.1136 of 2015, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2015 and respondent No.3 was relegated to the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 thereafter filed Misc. Civil Application No.3386 of 2016 in the said writ petition seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2015, which was rejected by order dated 22.02.2017, however order of status quo in service of respondent No.3 was ordered to continue for a further period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed Application No.42 of 2017 before the Tribunal and prayed for stay of order of dismissal dated 13.10.2014 wherein vide order dated 02.05.2017 the Tribunal granted stay. Against the said order the petitioner Management preferred Special Civil Application No.9844 of 2017, wherein, initially vide order dated 02.08.2017 this Court granted stay of the order of the Tribunal. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.08.2017 this Court allowed the said writ petition. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Schools is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the proposal of the petitioner Management in view of the observations of this Court made in the present judgment. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 01 (one) month from today. 11. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Schools is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the proposal of the petitioner Management in view of the observations of this Court made in the present judgment. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 01 (one) month from today. 11. Petition is allowed. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition allowed.