JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. The appellant is before this court assailing the order dated 18.6.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1408/2010. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has found fault in the action initiated by the appellant and the manner in which it was conducted and has, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner into service but has denied the benefit of the back wages. However, the benefit of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and the continuity of the said period until the actual date of superannuation has been provided. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by such order is before this court in this appeal. 2. Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the appeal papers. 3. The appellant herein, on receiving a complaint against the respondent No. 1 of indecent behaviour towards a girl student, had placed him under suspension on 1.6.2004 and had ultimately dismissed him from service w.e.f. 1.8.2005. The respondent No. 1, claiming to be aggrieved by the same, had preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, on taking note of the contention put forth by the respondent No. 1 that no opportunity had been granted to him and that the action culminating in dismissal was behind his back, had taken into consideration the provisions as contained in rule 4 of the Assam Aided Educational Institutions and Higher Secondary Schools and High Madrassa (Conduct and Discipline of the Employees) Rules, 1960 (‘1960 Rules’). In that light, keeping in view the nature of the punishment as provided therein, had also taken into consideration that such action could be taken only after providing an opportunity. It is in that light, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in the instant case, there was violation of the provisions as contained in rule 4 of 1960 Rules and since there is violation of principles of natural justice, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. 4. Mr. It is in that light, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in the instant case, there was violation of the provisions as contained in rule 4 of 1960 Rules and since there is violation of principles of natural justice, the order of dismissal is not sustainable. 4. Mr. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant would, however, contend that the order of the learned Single Judge is not justified, inasmuch as, an enquiry had been held and the committee had submitted its report based on which the action had been taken. Learned counsel has also relied on the documents at Annexure V of the appeal to contend that the enquiry committee consisting of two teachers and the management representatives had arrived at the conclusion that the complaint lodged by the student was justified and the conduct of the respondent No. 1 was unbecoming of a teacher. It is in that light the action had been taken. The learned counsel also seeks to contend that in a matter of present nature where the allegation of such grave misconduct is noticed, sub-rule b(iii) of rule 4 of the 1960 Rules enables dispensation of grant of opportunity in the event the appointing authority is satisfied that in the interest of the institution or security of the State, it is not expedient to give the person such an opportunity, and therefore, the management was justified in its action. Hence, it is contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the action of the management. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the very fact that the respondents are seeking to rely on sub-rule (b)(iii) would indicate that they have not held enquiry and, therefore, the conclusion as reached by the learned Single Judge that opportunity was not provided is justified. It is his further contention that sub-rule (b)(iii) as relied on by the respondents would not be applicable in the present circumstances. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 6. It is his further contention that sub-rule (b)(iii) as relied on by the respondents would not be applicable in the present circumstances. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 6. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions and perusal of the petition papers in that background would disclose that the appellant, except relying on the so-called enquiry report at Annexure V, has not brought on record any material to indicate that the enquiry had been conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. Even before this court, the record of enquiry has not been made available. If that be the position, the compliance as required under the rule has not been made. Further, reliance placed on sub-rule (b)(iii) would also not be justified in the present circumstance since the allegation against the respondent of indecent behaviour is a factual aspect which would have to be determined after providing opportunity. Therefore, in that circumstance, the learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at the conclusion that no opportunity had been granted to the respondent No. 1 and that there was violation of rule 4 of 1960 Rules and the principles of natural justice. In that circumstance, while the learned Single Judge has set aside the dismissal order, he has also been conscious to decline the back wages. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. 7. One further aspect which also requires consideration is that in the circumstances when the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the principles of natural justice had been violated, the law is well settled that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the management to proceed with the enquiry from the stage when the principles of natural justice had been violated. 8. However, in the present case, the said consideration does not arise, inasmuch as, it is the admitted case of the parties that the respondent No. 1 had attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2016 and, therefore, the actual reinstatement could not have been possible and in that circumstance, holding of enquiry is redundant. 9. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.