JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary (Education) Department, Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 as well as Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that she was earlier appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Kodomoni Pather M.E. School/Madrassa, on the strength of a resolution adopted by the School Managing Committee on 03/03/2004. The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 03/03/2004, was there-after approved by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the District Elementary Education Officer vide order dated 03/11/2005. The petitioner was the 4th Assistant Teacher in the said school. However, since the 2 (two) other Assistant Teachers, senior to her, viz. Md. Abdul Hamid and Afaj Uddin were no longer in service under the school, hence, the petitioner had become the second Assistant Teacher and was entitled to provincialisation of her service. However, instead of treating her as the second Assistant Teacher, the respondent nos. 5 had manipulated the records and shown his wife i.e. the respondent no. 7 as the second Assistant Teacher in the school with the sole objective of depriving the petitioner of her legitimate dues. Situated thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4800/2011, inter-alia, praying for a direction for restoration of her service as the Assistant Teacher in the Kodomoni Pather M.E. School/Madrassa and also for regular payment of her salary and allowances. 3. In the aforesaid writ petition bearing No. WP(C) 4800/2011, the school authorities filed a counter affidavit, inter-alia, stating that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the strength of the resolution of the Managing Committee adopted on 02/03/2009 on the ground that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. 4. Assailing the said resolution, the writ petitioner had filed the second writ petition being WP(C) 963/2013, inter-alia, contending that the service of the petitioner had been terminated in violation of the procedural safeguards available under the provisions of Assam Non-Governmental Education Institution (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2006”) and the Rules framed there-under. 5. 5. The both the writ petitions are founded on similar fact situation raising a common question of law, hence, those are being disposed of by this common order. 6. Referring to the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Bhuyan submits that it is the admitted position of fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said school way back in the year 2004 and since then, she has been working as Assistant Teacher until 02/03/2009, from which date her services have purportedly terminated. However, no termination order was ever served upon the petitioner nor was she ever served with a show cause notice levelling the charge of misconduct against her. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Bhuyan, the impugned order/resolution terminating the service of the petitioner is not only in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice but also in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2006 as well as the provisions of Rule 19, 20 and 21 of the Rules framed there-under. Mr. Bhuyan counsel submits that the impugned decision to terminate the service of the petitioner being in utter violation of the procedural norms, is liable to be interfered with by this Court and the petitioner be reinstated in service. The learned further submits that the respondent no. 7 is the wife of the Head Master of the school (respondent no. 5) and that is the reason, the service of the petitioner has been shown to have been terminated by manipulating the records only to accommodate his wife as the second Assistant Teacher, so as to avail the benefit of provincialisation of the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. 7. Resisting the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel, Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 in WP(C) 963/2013 submits that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for long period ever since her appointment as Assistant Teacher in the School. Ms. Borgohain further submits that the petitioner was habitually absentee ever-since her appointment as Assistant Teacher. By referring to the notice dated 23/02/2009 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition), Ms. 5, 6 and 7 in WP(C) 963/2013 submits that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for long period ever since her appointment as Assistant Teacher in the School. Ms. Borgohain further submits that the petitioner was habitually absentee ever-since her appointment as Assistant Teacher. By referring to the notice dated 23/02/2009 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition), Ms. Borgohain submits that a show cause notice was, in fact, issued to the petitioner but despite receipt of the same she did not make any reply nor improved her performance, which had compelled the Managing Committee to adopt the resolution on 02/03/2009 terminating her services. Ms. Borgohain has, however, fairly submitted that before terminating the service of the writ petitioner, the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed there-under had not been strictly followed by the School Managing committee. But she also submits that considering the fact that the dispute pertains to internal affairs of a venture school, this Court may ignore such minor technical deficiencies, even if apparent on the face of the record, more so since there are criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 8. Ms. Borgohain has also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that after the issuance of the notification dated 02/06/2016, all writ petitions pertaining to dispute involving teaching and non-teaching staff of venture educational institutions are required to be transferred to the Education Tribunal established as per the direction of this Court in the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Abdul Gofur Mondal Vs. State Of Assam & Ors. reported in 2015 (2) GLT 337 (FB), Ms Borgohain submits that since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under the law, this Court would not entertain the writ petition since the same has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief against a venture school. 9. Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department submits that the issues raised in the writ petition purely falls under the domain of the School Managing Committee and the Head Master and as such, the official respondents may not have any role to pay. He, however, submits that the department will follow the directions issued by this Court in this matter. 10. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. 11. He, however, submits that the department will follow the directions issued by this Court in this matter. 10. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. 11. After the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Abdul Gofur Mondal (Supra), it is no more res-integra that even in case of a venture school, a writ petition will be maintainable if there is violation of statutory provisions or where decision of Non Governmental Institution affects public interest. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was originally appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Kodomoni Pather M.E. School/Madrassa vide resolution dated 03/03/2004 adopted by the Managing Committee, pursuant whereto the petitioner had also joined her duties. It is also not in dispute that he provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules famed there under will be applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The respondents have also admitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the strength of the resolution dated 02/03/2009. What would, therefore, be relevant for consideration in this case is as to whether such termination of service of the petitioner was done in accordance with law? 13. The Act of 2006 has been framed to regulate the establishment and management of Non Governmental Institution in the State of Assam and the matters connected therewith and /or incidental thereto. As per section 15(2) of the Act of 2006, no employee of a Non Governmental Educational Institution can be dismissed, remove or reduced in rank or terminated without giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without the matter being referred to the Managing Committee for its consideration and approval. The Rules framed under the Act of 2006, more particularly Rule 21 makes it clear that no order imposing a penalty on an employee shall be made except after an enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner prescribed in the said Rules. The provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2007 would be relevant for the purpose of the case and is hereby quoted below:- “21. The provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2007 would be relevant for the purpose of the case and is hereby quoted below:- “21. Procedure for imposing penalty.- (a) No order imposing on an employee any penalty shall be made except after an enquiry, held, as far as may be in the manner specified below- (i) 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 the 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 stake whether he desires to be heard in person; (ii) On receipt of the written statement for his/her defence or where no such statement is received within the specified time, the specified time, the disciplinary authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do referring the proceeding to the Disciplinary Committee for enquiry and submit a report to the disciplinary authority with its findings and recommendation; (iii) At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee shall prepare a report of the inquiry regarding his/her findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefore; (b) The disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings, on each charge and if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties should be imposed, it shall,- (i) 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 may wish to make against the proposed action; (ii) On receipt of the representation, if any, made by the employee, the disciplinary authority shall determine what penalty is to be inflicted upon the employee and refer the matter to the Managing Committee for consideration and approval; (c) No order with regard to the imposition of a penalty shall be made by the disciplinary authority except after the receipt of the prior approval of the Managing Committee. (d) Any employee of a recognised institution who is aggrieved by any order imposing on him/her penalty of dismissal, removal or termination from service or any penalty may prefer an appeal to the appropriate court.” 14. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2007 makes it clear that dismissal from service is a major penalty and as per the Rule 20, the Disciplinary Committee is required to conduct the enquiry in respect of the charges involved in a disciplinary proceeding drawn against an employee and submit a report to the disciplinary authority. 15. From the records, it appears that on 23/02/2009, the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Head Master of the school had issued a communication to the petitioner to the following effect :- “23/02/2009 Notice To Mustt. Amina Khatun (Assistant Teacher) Kodomoni Pathar M.E. Madrassa. As per resolution No. 1 passed in the Managing Committee Meeting dtd. 23/2/2009 you have been informed and directed to that by 2/3/2009 you are to be regularly present in the Madrassa and perform Your duties. Otherwise the Managing Committee will cancel your appointment and appoint a new teacher in your place. Yours faithfully, Md. Hafizuddin 23/2/2009.” 16. According to the learned counsel appearing for the School Managing Committee, the notice dated 23/2/2009 was a show cause notice issued to her. However, from a perusal of the said notice, it is apparent that the same does not contain any charge nor has the petitioner been asked to show cause in respect of any charge levelled against her. There is no mention of any period during which the petitioner had allegedly remained absent from duty. Rather the communication dated 23/2/2009 appears to be a mere letter of caution issued to the petitioner, without giving any specific material particulars on which the same had been issued. There is neither any enquiry held nor any report prepared by the respondents to show that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct. 17. It is also seen from the record that on 2/3/2009 i.e. barely a week after issuance of the communication dated 23/02/2009, a resolution was adopted terminating her service. The Management Committee did not even care to issue any order of termination to the petitioner. 18. 17. It is also seen from the record that on 2/3/2009 i.e. barely a week after issuance of the communication dated 23/02/2009, a resolution was adopted terminating her service. The Management Committee did not even care to issue any order of termination to the petitioner. 18. From the aforesaid materials, it is thus apparent that there was total non compliance of the procedural requirement laid down under the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed there-under before issuing an order of termination of service of the petitioner. Therefore, the present is a case where the service of the petitioner has been terminated by violating the statutory provisions. As such, in view of the Full Bench decision in Abdul Gofur Mondal (Supra), the writ petition would be maintainable. Since the service of the petitioner was terminated way back in the year 2009 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the Educational Tribunal at this distant point of time. 19. There is another significant aspect of the matter which deserves mention herein. The petitioner has made categorical averment in the writ petition to the effect that the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Head Master of the School had manipulated the record to terminate the service of the petitioner with the sole intention of accommodating the respondent no. 7, who is his wife. The records bear out that the respondent no. 7 had been immediately appointed as second Assistant Teacher in place of the writ petitioner. Despite such categorical averments of nepotism, respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 had filed joint affidavit contesting the writ petition, thereby clearly exposing the nexus between the parties in the matter. If the respondent no. 7 is the wife of the Head Master, it is not understood as to how he could have played a pivotal role in selection and appointment of his wife in the post of second Assistant Teacher, which post was ultimately provincialised with the approval of the Director of Elementary Education. The resolution adopted on 23/02/2009 terminating the service of the petitioner, therefore, does not appear to be an action taken in good faith. 20. The resolution adopted on 23/02/2009 terminating the service of the petitioner, therefore, does not appear to be an action taken in good faith. 20. From the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that there is not only clear violation of the statutory provisions but complete non-transparency in the manner in which the service of the petitioner was terminated. The conduct of the respondent no. 5 leaves this Court with a strong impression that the entire exercise was stage managed only to accommodate his wife through the back door. Although, Ms. Borgohain has strongly pleaded in favour of the respondents stating that the writ petitioner is guilty of laches and negligence since she has approached this Court at a belated stage only to avail the financial benefits flowing from the provincialisation of the post of second Assistant Teacher, I am not inclined to non-suit the writ petitioner on such ground when it is established from the record that the respondents had acted in clear violation of the statutory provisions in terminating her service. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No9. 963/2013 is hereby allowed. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are directed to forthwith reinstate the writ petitioner back in service and allow her to perform her duties as the second Assistant Teacher by paying her regular salary and allowances. Subject to the fulfilment of the above condition, it would be open to the School Management to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by following the statutory provisions as laid down in the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed there-under. The respondent no. 2 will pass appropriate orders in the matter, within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, facilitating compliance of the order of this Court. 22. As regards WP(C) No. 4800/2011, the prayer made therein stands answered in terms of the observations made hereinabove. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.