JUDGMENT & ORDER : None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called upon. It is noticed that on earlier occasion also, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.03.2017, none had appeared for the petitioner. The matter being of the year 2005, and as the learned counsel for the petitioner is repeatedly not appearing when the matter is taken up, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter be considered on merit, in the absence of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had joined the Rajendra Kalita Vidyapith High School, Hengrabari as Headmaster on 17.05.1994. On 14.06.2005, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the School Managing Committee, wherein 2(two) allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. As per the first allegation, the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.350/- from the students as against the prescribed amount of Rs.265 for the purpose of filing up of the HSLC examination form. Further the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.385/- as against Rs.285/- from each of the private students for filing up of the HSLC form and another amount of Rs.50/- was collected towards registration fees although the required amount to be collected was Rs.20/-. 3. Further it is stated that the petitioner had collected the higher amount in a secretive manner without the knowledge of the Managing Committee of the School. It is also alleged that when the students raised objection, the petitioner had threatened them that if that higher amount is not paid they would not be allowed to get registered in the HSLC examination. 4. The second allegation against the petitioner was that there were complaints from the students that the academic atmosphere of the school was not maintained and the sitting of the school was not according to the school timing and it was according to the whims and fancies of the Headmaster. The school sits sometimes at 9.A.M and at times at 10.A.M., and the Headmaster even does not regularly come to the school. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 19.06.2005 to the aforesaid show cause notice. The school sits sometimes at 9.A.M and at times at 10.A.M., and the Headmaster even does not regularly come to the school. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 19.06.2005 to the aforesaid show cause notice. The petitioner in his reply states that the higher amount was collected from the students as per their own consent and the same was spent towards expenditure of the puja committee of the school and the detailed account in respect of receipts and expenditure statement of the accounts was handed over the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Be that as it may, the School Managing Committee upon considering the reply of the petitioner had taken a resolution dated 13.07.2005, by which it was resolved to remove the petitioner from service. Accordingly, such decision of the Managing Committee was communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee by the letter dated 15.07.2005. The aforesaid resolution to remove the petitioner and the communication dated 15.07.2005 have been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the order of removal of the petitioner is arbitrary and without any authority. The petitioner also takes the ground that in the impugned order of resolution a report of an Enquiry Committee has been made to be one of the basis for removing the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was indulging in blackmailing the students while receiving a higher fee. 6. It is stated by Mr. P Hazarika, learned counsel for the School Managing Committee that the enquiry report referred in the resolution dated 13.05.2005 pertains to an enquiry conducted by the 3(three) member committee consisting of Smti Ranju Borah, Sri Haranath Das and Sri Pradip Kalita. It is stated by Mr. Hazarika that the petitioner was given due notice and he was allowed to participate in the enquiry proceeding and the report of the enquiry committee was made after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 7. It is noticed that at the relevant time when the action of removal against the petitioner was taken, the concerned school was still in its venture stage and although the petitioner had stated that the School Managing Committee is not authorized to take such decision but the school being at venture stage, this Court is of the view that the appropriate authority to take such decision would be the Managing Committee of the School. 8. 8. It is also stated by Mr. Hazarika that the impugned order of resolution had been approved by the Inspector of Schools by its order dated 15.07.2005. A copy of the said approval is made available and is kept on record. 9. From the grounds taken in the writ petition, it can be seen that the main ground of the petitioner is that the order of removal was passed against the petitioner due to certain vindictive action being taken by the Secretary and President of the School, respectively and to that effect the petitioner also refers to an earlier ejahar being lodged by the Secretary and President against the petitioner. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner appears to be a factual dispute that the petitioner seeks to raise in this writ petition. The petitioner does not take a stand that the main allegation against him that he had forcefully collected higher amount from the students is factually incorrect. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner had indulged in any such activity and the School at that point of time was at venture stage, it was the discretion of the Managing Committee to take such decision and no infirmity is noticed in the procedure adopted in the proceeding conducted against the petitioner. 11. It is also noticed in the instant case that the provisions of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 which prescribes for a given procedure for conducting a disciplinary proceeding is also not applicable in this case and that the principles of Natural Justice of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had been reasonably followed. 12. Hence in the absence of any subsequent stand taken by the petitioner regarding the procedure adopted, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the procedure followed in passing the order of removal is contrary to any law. Further, it has also been noticed that the concerned school was provincialised in the year 2013 and the service of the person, who was appointed in place of the petitioner had already been regularized in the School as teacher. 13. Further, it has also been noticed that the concerned school was provincialised in the year 2013 and the service of the person, who was appointed in place of the petitioner had already been regularized in the School as teacher. 13. It is stated that the said provincialisation of the school as well as regularization of the appointment of the teacher who was appointed in place of the petitioner, having not been challenged, any case for adjudication on the correctness of the order of removal has, in the meantime, become infructuous. 14. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition for interfering with the order of removal of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 15. A copy of the order of provincialisation dated 26.07.2013 is kept as part of the record.