ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.17 by which Commissioner, Higher Education has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 and set aside the order of termination dated 3.8.2016. 3. Facts of the case in brief are as under. That the respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition No.8198/2014 challenging the appointment of Dr. Jacob Thudipara as Principal of Indore School of Social Work. The writ petition came up for hearing on 3.3.2016. By that time Dr. Jacob has crossed the age of superannuation, therefore, direction was given to relieve him immediately and the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of post of Principal by taking into account various executive instructions issued by the State Government and in accordance with law. The Additional Director, Higher Education vide order dated 4.3.2016 has directed President of the school to hand over the charge of the Principal to respondent No.3 who is the senior- most Professor in the school. It is alleged in the petition that on 5.3.2016 respondent No.3 forcibly entered into the chamber of Principal and misbehaved with the office bearers of the governing body and the in-charge principal and also to the outgoing Principal. It is further alleged that she used un-parliamentary language and got published the entire episode in the media due to which the image of the institution has tarnished, therefore, the management has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. By order dated 12.3.2016 she was placed under suspension. Petitioner issued various notices dated 5.3.2016, 14.3.2016 and 21.3.2016 for service or order of suspension. By resolution dated 12.3.2016 the board of Governors has decided to constitute an enquiry committee comprising of three members to take disciplinary action against respondent No.3. Charge sheet dated 24.6.2016 was issued to the respondent. Even the charge-sheet sent to the respondent No.3 by post has been returned with the noting of “refused to accept”. Copies of the envelopes with endorsement are annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner institution also got published notice in the local newspaper with the direction to the respondent to appear before the enquiry committee on 3.8.2016 at 2:30 p.m. The news was published in “Choutha Sansar” daily newspaper dated 30.7.2016. 4. Copies of the envelopes with endorsement are annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner institution also got published notice in the local newspaper with the direction to the respondent to appear before the enquiry committee on 3.8.2016 at 2:30 p.m. The news was published in “Choutha Sansar” daily newspaper dated 30.7.2016. 4. On 3.8.2016 the enquiry committee has submitted its report and found guilty of misconduct against all the charges. The said report was placed before the Board of Governors on the same day i.e. 3.8.2016 at 3:00 p.m. The Board of Governors has decided to terminate the services of the respondent and passed the order on 3.8.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the termination order petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Higher Education in which she alleged that the termination order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. She has also alleged that enquiry officer has not sent any notice and the management has not served copy of the enquiry report and the show cause notice proposing the punishment. By order dated 3.8.2016 the suspension of the respondent No.3 was set aside by the Commissioner, Higher Education and in order to avoid her joining on the same day petitioner has terminated the services of the petitioner by raising the ground of protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India being a minority institution. The detailed reply was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority on 26.9.2016. 6. Learned Commissioner has found that the entire action of the petitioner terminating the services of respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice and there were no sufficient reason in the enquiry report for terminating the services of the petitioner, hence the termination order dated 3.8.2016 was set aside and petitioner has been directed to reinstate respondent No.3 in service, hence the present petition before this Court. 7. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made serious efforts to serve the charge sheet to the respondent No.3 but she herself has refused to accept, therefore, the appellate authority has wrongly held that principles of natural justice has been violated. At the most the appellate authority could have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority at the stage of supply of the enquiry report instead of directing reinstatement. At the most the appellate authority could have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority at the stage of supply of the enquiry report instead of directing reinstatement. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B.K. Karunakar, reported in 1994 SCC Supp.(2) 391. He further submits that still the management of the petitioner is ready to give opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3 and she can appear before the enquiry officer by submitting a reply but for which reinstatement is not necessary and she would continue under suspension. 8. In reply Shri Vivek Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that she has lost the confidence over the management and she will not get justice, therefore, at the most matter can be remanded back to the appellate authority to decide all the objections raised by the petitioner in the present petition but the respondent No.3 is entitled for reinstatement. If this Court admits the writ petition then no interim relief be granted them. He further submits that petitioner has violated the principles of natural justice by not sending copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice proposing the punishment of termination. Respondent No.3 has been terminated because she got the order of joining from the Commissioner. She was directed to appear before the enquiry committee at 2:30 p.m. and on the same day the enquiry report has been prepared at 3:00 p.m. and placed before the Governing Body and who has approved the same and terminated the service of respondent No.3. The conduct of petitioner shows the mala fide intention behind the termination of respondent No.3. 9. Shri Romesh Dave, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that Commissioner has followed the rules called the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchari) Appeal Rules, 1978 (for short ‘the Rules of 1978’) and decided the appeal in which no interference is called for. 10. Respondent No.3 filed caveat and marked her presence through counsel and argued on the question of interim relief without filing the reply. ORDER 11. That respondent No.3 was appointed under the grant-in-aid post, therefore, provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam of 1978') would apply along with the Rules made thereunder. ORDER 11. That respondent No.3 was appointed under the grant-in-aid post, therefore, provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam of 1978') would apply along with the Rules made thereunder. Under section 6 of the Adhiniyam 1978 provides that no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services, terminated except in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. For conducting enquiry against respondent No.3 petitioner/institution has constituted a three member committee and all the three members of the committee are from their own school. Under the Act of 1978 the State Government has framed Rules called the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Padachyut Karne/Seva Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 (for short the Niyam, 1983). Under this rule complete procedure has been prescribed and the enquiry officer has also been nominated by post. In the case of Teachers of Higher Secondary School, the concerned Divisional Superintendent of Education would be the enquiry officer. Rule 7 is reproduced below : 7. Enquiry Officer. -- (1) After the written statement is received from the teacher or other employee in accordance with rule 5 or if no statement received, within the time specified a reference shall be made -- (a) in the case of a teacher of pre primary, primary and middle school to the concerned District Education Officer; (b) in the case of a teacher of Higher Secondary School to the concerned Divisional Superintendent of Education; (c) in the case of a teacher or Lecturer of a college, to the Secretary Madhya Pradesh Uchha Shiksha Anudan Ayog; and (d) in the case of a teacher of a technical institution to the Director of Technical Education for appointing an enquiry officer where upon the officer/Ayog, applied to, shall appoint such other officer as he deems fit to act as the enquiry officer; (e) in the case of an employee, the Head of the Institution shall be appointed as an enquiry officer. (2) The enquiry officer, after his appointment shall enquiry into the charges framed against the teacher or other employee as provided in rule (8). 12. After completion of the enquiry he shall submit report to the management for its consideration under rule 11. (2) The enquiry officer, after his appointment shall enquiry into the charges framed against the teacher or other employee as provided in rule (8). 12. After completion of the enquiry he shall submit report to the management for its consideration under rule 11. Under rule 12(2) if the management accepts the findings of all or any part of the charges and is of the opinion that Teacher or employee should be dismissed or removed from service then he shall furnish such enquiry report to the Teacher or other employee as the case may be stating the action that is to be taken by the management. Rule 12 is reproduced below : 12. Decision of Management. -- (1)The Management shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (2) If the management having regard to the findings on all or any of article of charge, is of the opinion that the teacher or other employee should be dismissed or removed from service or his services should be terminated, it shall -- (a) furnish to the teacher or other employee a copy of the report of the enquiry officer and a statement of the findings in regard to each article of charge together with brief reasons for its disagreement if any, with the findings of the enquiry officer. (b) give the teacher or other employee a notice stating the action that is proposed to be taken by the management under sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 6 and calling upon him to submit within fifteen days of receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days, as may be allowed, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed action on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry held under these rules. (3)(a)The management shall after considering the representation, if any, made by the teacher or other employee, determine what action, if any, should be taken against the teacher or other employee and make a proposal for the order which it intends to pass. (3)(a)The management shall after considering the representation, if any, made by the teacher or other employee, determine what action, if any, should be taken against the teacher or other employee and make a proposal for the order which it intends to pass. (d) The management shall thereupon forward the whole case alongwith its proposal of the Order intended to be passed to the competent authority for its approval and the competent authority shall not refuse to grant such approval except on one or more of the following grounds -- (i)that there has not been, in the course of enquiry, proper or sufficient compliance of the procedure laid down in these rules; (ii)that the provisions of the Act are likely to be defeated by the said order; and (iii) that the said order, on the face of it, is pervese. (4) Where the competent authority is of the opinion that the proposal sent to it by the management under clause (b) of sub-rule (3) suffers from any of the defects mentioned therein, it shall, return the case to the management with such directions as it thinks fit for proceeding with the case in a manner free from the said defects. 13. In the present case the said procedure has not been followed by the petitioner. The entire composition of enquiry committee was contrary to the rule 7 of Niyam, 1978. The committee who has conducted enquiry and submitted report to the management committee was incompetent, therefore, further action also vitiates. This Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P and others, reported in 2007(I) MPWN 86 , has held that teachers of aided post cannot be removed from the post without following procedure prescribed under the Niyam, 1983. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below : 10..... Apart from this, the Government has also framed Rules with regard to disciplinary action against the employees and teachers of the aided institutions. These Rules have been named as the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Padachyut Karne/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983, hereinafter called as Niyam 1983. The procedure of termination of services of teachers and other employees have been prescribed in the aforesaid rules, which is as under : “3. Show cause notice. These Rules have been named as the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Padachyut Karne/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983, hereinafter called as Niyam 1983. The procedure of termination of services of teachers and other employees have been prescribed in the aforesaid rules, which is as under : “3. Show cause notice. -- No order imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-clause (iii) or clause (a) of section 6 of the Act on a teacher or other employee shall be made unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and he has been given reasonable opportunity of defending himself.” It is clear from the aforesaid rule that the respondents have not followed the mandatory procedure as prescribed in the rules and the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power and authority to conduct the inquiry as per the provisions of the aforesaid statutory rules but he conducted the inquiry and on the basis of his report the order of termination has been passed. Hence, the proceedings conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer are against the law and the order impugned which has been passed on the basis of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is void ab initio. 14. The appellate authority has only considered the issue that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner and punishment is not in conformity with the finding of the enquiry report. The appellate authority has quashed the termination order dated 3.8.2016 which was illegally passed in view of the aforesaid finding. While setting aside the termination order the appellate authority was required to remit back the case to the petitioner to take action in accordance with law, therefore, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take action against respondent No.3 after following the process prescribed under the Niyam, 1983. 15. Though the petitioner has raised the issue of protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India before the appellate authority but did not argue before this Court. 15. Though the petitioner has raised the issue of protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India before the appellate authority but did not argue before this Court. Even otherwise the said issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mehdibai Foujdar Education Society v. State of M.P and others, reported in 1998(2) MPLJ 698 , that the provisions of 6A(iii) and the proviso are applicable to the minority institution and the same does not affect the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India and the right of appeal is also available. 16. Writ petition is dismissed.