JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed calling for the records relating to the termination order passed by the 4th respondent in No.Nil dated 18.05.2012 against the petitioner and quash the same and consequentially direct the 4th respondent to confer all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed appointed as a Record Clerk in the fourth respondent School on 02.03.1998 in a regular sanctioned vacancy and the same was approved by the 3rd respondent DEO with effect from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner got promoted as Lab Assistant from 31.08.1998 duly approved by the Department. The school was under direct payment on account of the dispute in the management from 01.01.2006 to 09.02.2011. 3. The 6th respondent was approved as correspondent of the 4th respondent School by proceedings in Na.Ka.No 4415/A3/10 dated 10.02.2011 for the period up to 24.01.2012. Again, the School was on direct payment from 28.02.2011 to 08.05.2011 owing to management disputes. Again, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4415/A3/10 dated 09.05.2011, the 6th respondent was approved as correspondent up to 24.01.2012. The petitioner was on medical leave from 10.02.2011 to 28.03.2011 and again from 15.04.2011 to 22.11.2011 and the petitioner had undergone uterus removal during the above period under the advise of Doctors. 4. Suspecting the truthfulness of the medical leave of the petitioner, the 6th respondent referred the petitioner to Medical Board. The Medical Board examined the petitioner on 27.09.2011 and found eligible leave from 15.04.2011 to 27.09.2011 and recommended further medical rest of 14 days. The medical Board examined the petitioner again on 11.10.2011 and recommended further leave for 28 days. The Medical Board examined the petitioner for the third time on 08.11.2011 and recommended further leave of 14 days. During the examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board on 22.11.2011, the petitioner was found fit to join duty on 23.11.2011 and accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on 23.11.2011. 5. On 02.01.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension from the 4th respondent School and a Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner and disciplinary proceeding initiated. The petitioner filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice on 12.01.2012. Not satisfied with the reply, a charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2012 by the 6th respondent. On 02.01.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension from the 4th respondent School and a Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner and disciplinary proceeding initiated. The petitioner filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice on 12.01.2012. Not satisfied with the reply, a charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2012 by the 6th respondent. According to the respondent, the tenure of the 6th respondent as correspondent ended on 12.01.2012 in view of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No 4415/A3/10 dated 10.02.2011 ordering direct payment. It was pointed out that the 6th respondent filed WP(MD)No.483 of 2012 challenging the above proceedings and the same was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 19.03.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner had challenged the suspension order in WP(MD)No.197 of 2012 before this Court and the same was later withdrawn by the petitioner in view of the termination order dated 18.05.2012. 6. In response to the Charge Memo dated 18.01.2012, the petitioner submitted reply on 07.02.2012 denying all the charges and requested copies of supporting documents. On 28.02.2012, the 6th respondent called the petitioner to appear for enquiry fixed on 05.03.2012 before the correspondent. The petitioner could not appear for the enquiry on medical grounds and vide letter dated 03.03.2012 sought adjournment of the enquiry date. Again the 6th respondent issued a letter dated 15.03.2012 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry before one Advocate Ganapathy M.A., B.L., on 20.03.2012. The petitioner submits that neither the appointment of the enquiry officer was intimated to her nor she received any notice from the enquiry officer and the communication was received only on 20.03.2012. The petitioner vide letter dated 20.03.2012 had requested the enquiry officer to adjourn the date of hearing on medical grounds and attached Medical Certificate for the period 02.03.2012 to 31.03.2012. 7. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report setting out the proposed punishment as contemplated under Form VII of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules, had straight away passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 terminating the services of the petitioner from the 4th respondent School. This Writ Petition is filed against the above said termination order. Interim Stay was granted by this Court on 12.06.2012 and the petitioner rejoined duty on 14.06.2012. This Writ Petition is filed against the above said termination order. Interim Stay was granted by this Court on 12.06.2012 and the petitioner rejoined duty on 14.06.2012. On 18.06.2012, the interim order was recalled citing the ground that the termination order is challenged in the main Writ Petition. 8. The petitioner has brought on record the history of litigation regarding the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4415/A3/10 dated 12.01.2012 between the School and the Education Department that was challenged up to the Supreme Hon'ble Court and the Order dated 12.01.2012 in the said proceedings are still in force. It was pointed out that in a similar termination order passed by one Shri V. Puduraja passed by the 6th respondent, this Court had issued an interim stay vide Order dated 07.09.2014 in WP(MD)No.7506 of 2013 and the staff is still working with the School. 9. The petitioner submits that the Order of termination is passed without jurisdiction as no approval granted to the 6th respondent as correspondent of the 4th respondent School beyond 12.01.2012. It was alleged that no subsistence allowance was paid from 02.01.2012 onwards, no enquiry conducted, no witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and the copy of enquiry report setting out proposed punishment as contemplated under the Form VII of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act not issued and prayed for quashing the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction as well as on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. The third respondent DEO submits that the school is non minority fully aided school and is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and the Rules thereunder. It was submitted that the tenure of the 6th respondent as correspondent in the 4th respondent School ended on 24.01.2012. It was submitted that no information of suspension or payment of subsistence allowances was received by the respondent. It was submitted that no information on enquiry, nature of enquiry or decision taken or such proposals were received nor any prior permission was accorded by them for the termination of the petitioner. And no approval was given for the impugned order of dismissal dated 18.05.2012. It was opined that the action of the 4th respondent School is against the rules. It was also informed that the minority claim of the School is under dispute. 11. And no approval was given for the impugned order of dismissal dated 18.05.2012. It was opined that the action of the 4th respondent School is against the rules. It was also informed that the minority claim of the School is under dispute. 11. The respondents 4 & 6 in their common counter submitted that the petitioner and her husband were helping the rival correspondent/management even when the rival management was not in power. They allege that the petitioner got quick promotion owing to the allegiance with the rival management. It was alleged that the petitioner and her husband used to collect funds and remit it in the account opened in the name of the correspondent and operated fraudulently. It was alleged that two criminal cases were filed against the rival correspondent on the charge of misappropriation of fund to the tune of Rs.81,99,604/- and Rs.1,75,000/- with the help of the petitioner and her husband. 12. The respondents submit that the 6th respondent was appointed correspondent of the 4th respondent School on 10.02.2011. It was submitted that sniffing the order of the appointment, the petitioner went on medical leave. The respondents submit that the petitioner was suspended on a charge of misappropriation of Rs.63,690/- and for unauthorized removal of records of the School. It was submitted that the continuous medical leave necessitated the reference to the Medical Board. The respondents allege that no explanation was given to the letter 03.01.2012 and therefore charges were framed on 18.01.2012. The alleged explanation dated 12.01.2012 was ante-dated and was enclosed for the first time with the petitioner's reply dated 07.02.2012 filed in response to the Charge Memo as an after thought. It was surmised that the same was not filed as the petitioner had chosen to file the Writ Petition No.197 of 2012 before this Court. It was submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner against the charges are blind denials. It was alleged that during the suspension, the petitioner had visited Madurai without the prior permission of the Correspondent. It was contended that the petitioner had admitted the status of the 6th respondent as the correspondent of the School in all her communications and therefore questioning his locus standi is perverse. The respondents relied on various communications of the 6th respondent with the educational authorities to substantiate his status and authority. It was contended that the petitioner had admitted the status of the 6th respondent as the correspondent of the School in all her communications and therefore questioning his locus standi is perverse. The respondents relied on various communications of the 6th respondent with the educational authorities to substantiate his status and authority. It was also argued that the the 4th respondent School had minority status. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in as much as there was no approval for 6th respondent to act as correspondent beyond 24.01.2012, the entire disciplinary proceedings allegedly taken by him against the petitioner ending in termination order dated 18.05.2012 are arbitrary, illegal, ab initio void and without jurisdiction. He argued that since neither of the warring management are said to be administering the 4th respondent school and the said question is not a subject matter before any Courts, the order passed by the 6th respondent without jurisdiction cannot be ratified under law. He submitted that the authority suffers from defect of jurisdiction that cannot be cured even with the consent of the parties. The exercising of authority by the 6th respondent is arbitrary in defiance of Code 10 of the grant-in-code of the Tamil Nadu Educational Department. It was argued that the dismissal order is bad in law as no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during the suspension period pushing the petitioner into financial wreck causing serious prejudice. The learned counsel listed out a long list of infirmities in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings made in the affidavit of the petitioner. 14. Heard the Counsel and perused the records. The petitioner joined as a Record Clerk with the fourth respondent school and later got promoted as Lab Assistant in a sanctioned post. Her appointment and promotion was duly approved by the Education Department. The petitioner was suspended and later dismissed on certain charges of misconduct including misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.63,690/- by the 6th respondent in the capacity as correspondent of the 4th respondent School. No approval was taken from the DEO in terms of the Tamil Nadu Private Recognized School (Regulation) Act, 1973. No subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension, nor the same was brought to the knowledge of the third respondent. No approval was taken from the DEO in terms of the Tamil Nadu Private Recognized School (Regulation) Act, 1973. No subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension, nor the same was brought to the knowledge of the third respondent. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal in this Writ Petition on various grounds including jurisdiction and prejudice. The 3rd respondent has filed his counter and a common counter is filed on behalf of the 4th & 6th respondents. 15. The petitioner as well as the respondents in the written submissions and also in their arguments delved deep into the history and the present status of litigations between the two warring groups staking claim for the management of the School. And it is admitted that the petitioner and the 6th respondent belonged to or sympathized with the rival factions. In the midst of the litigation, the School is subjected to direct payment and the appointment of the 6th respondent as correspondent of the 4th respondent school is neither recognized nor approved by the 3rd respondent from 12.01.2012. This position is not disturbed or altered in the litigations. Until 12.01.2012, the appointment of the 6th respondent as the correspondent of the 4th respondent School was duly approved by the 3rd respondent education authority. 16. The question whether the 4th respondent School is a minority institution and whether any approval is needed for the dismissal of service in the instant case is left open and consciously not dealt and considered in this case as there are varying claims by the stake holders regarding the minority status of the 4th respondent School. However, it needs to be recorded that the education department has placed on record that the School is treated as a non-minority institution for all purposes. Nevertheless, as far as the 3rd respondent education authority is concerned, the School erred in not seeking approval for the impugned order of dismissal dated 18.05.2012 and that the merit of the dismissal in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 can be considered by them only upon receipt of the records and reports. They had stated that they had not received any information regarding the suspension, enquiry or dismissal of the petitioner in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973. 17. They had stated that they had not received any information regarding the suspension, enquiry or dismissal of the petitioner in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973. 17. The petitioner questions the locus standi of the 6th respondent to exercise the jurisdiction to act as a Disciplinary Authority. They have cited the various proceedings in file Na.Ka.No 4415/A3/10 that approved the appointment of the 6th respondent as correspondent only up to 24.01.2012 and not beyond. This was also affirmed by the third respondent who is also the approving authority. This position is also not disturbed or altered by the proceedings before various courts in the appeals challenging the proceedings in file Na.Ka,No 4415/A3/10 . It is noted that the proceedings were conducted and the dismissal order was passed by the 6th respondent after 24.01.2012 when his appointment was not approved. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that that the 6th respondent had no locus standi to conduct the disciplinary proceedings or pass the impugned order of dismissal finds force. The fact that the petitioner had addressed the 6th respondent as correspondent in her communications does not confer authority on the 6th respondent. 18. The petitioner feared that the disciplinary action initiated and the resultant order of dismissal is pre-meditated. The supporting documents requested by the petitioner in the course of the enquiry were not given to her. The appointment of the advocate for enquiry was also not intimated to her. The Notice of hearing was also not issued by the enquiry authority. The enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner. The proposal of punishment consequent to the enquiry report was also not served on her. It is not denied that the request for adjournment of enquiry fixed on 20.03.2012 was followed with a Medical Certificate. Propriety demands that the enquiry ought to have been adjourned when the delinquent staff is medically unfit to appear and depose and defend. On the top of all, no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension and the 6th respondent has no explanation on why subsistence allowance was not paid or why the same was not brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent when the school was subjected to direct payment. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this alone can wreck the petitioner financially and cause grave prejudice. 19. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this alone can wreck the petitioner financially and cause grave prejudice. 19. It is on record that the petitioner was subjected to medical board examination for the medical leave availed by her. The Medical Board had approved and ratified the medical leave availed by the petitioner. The petitioner underwent surgery for uterus removal during the period of leave and the medical leave availed by her proved to be bona fide. The 6th respondent had gone on record to claim that the petitioner went on Medical Leave sniffing the appointment order of the 6th respondent as correspondent of the 4th respondent School. They admit that the petitioner sympathized with the rival faction staking claim for management of the School. As such the petitioner's fear of prejudice is not fully unjustified. In the circumstances, the 'ex-parte' proceedings culminating in the grave punishment of dismissal of Service is smeared with suspicion of prejudice and bias. 20. The petitioner is a Lab Assistant during the period she was charged to have misappropriated the funds. The duties of a Lab Assistant do not involve managing the finances of the School. It is also not the case of the respondents. It was argued that the management had entrusted the job of collecting fees to the husband and wife duo. If that is the case, and even if the charge of misappropriation is proved and the money recovered, it is only the authority viz. the erstwhile management that entrusted the job of collecting fees is accountable and can be charged for misappropriation and not the petitioner. Therefore, the order of dismissal dated 18.05.2012 is flawed. 21. It is surprising to note that the fact of dismissal or the suspension and non payment of subsistence allowance to an approved non teaching staff holding a sanctioned post is not known to the 3rd respondent education department when the school was under direct payment. It is also amusing to note that another staff of the same school with similar punishment at about the same time continue in the post on the basis of interim relief from this Hon'ble Court while the petitioner had to suffer. 22. It is also amusing to note that another staff of the same school with similar punishment at about the same time continue in the post on the basis of interim relief from this Hon'ble Court while the petitioner had to suffer. 22. In view of the above discussions, I have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings culminating in the impugned dismissal order dated 18.05.2012 of the 6th respondent suffers from infirmities, smacks of prejudice besides violating the principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law. I find that the 6th respondent had no locus standi to exercise the authority of the correspondent from 12.01.2012 and therefore the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 is illegal, ab initio void and non est in the eye of law. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no occasion to ratify the illegal order of the 6th respondent under the Law at a future date. 23. Therefore, the impugned termination order passed by the 4th respondent in No.Nil dated 18.05.2012, is set aisde and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.