ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 3449 of 2013. 2. The background of fact which has given rise to the present appeal is that original applicant no. 1 - Vallabhbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, who is opponent no. 1 herein, was serving as a Science Teacher in the school run by Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal, right from 01.10.1984 and throughout his tenure till retirement except the present episode, neither any disciplinary action was taken nor any circumstance had arisen with regard to his discharge of service as a Science Teacher. It appears that before three months from the date of his superannuation, the anti-tuition squad from the office of the District Education Officer carried out raid on 03.03.2006, at the premises where it was found that opponent no. 1 was teaching Maths to 15 students. Based upon this, on 06.03.2006, promptly, the District Education Officer, had informed the school to take disciplinary action against opponent no. 1 for breach of Government guidelines prohibiting Teachers from giving private tuition. 2.1. In response to this, the school management appears to have issued show cause notice on 10.04.2006, which was replied by opponent no. 1 on 04.05.2006 and then having found explanation justified, the school management on 29.05.2006 informed the District Education Officer that explanation of opponent no. 1 is found to be satisfactory, but the District Education Officer, remained tight over the report of the Management and by efflux of time, opponent no. 1 attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006. 2.2. It appears that after about 4 months from the date of the retirement, the District Education Officer on 05.10.2006 informed the institute that their action of not holding regular domestic inquiry and giving a clean chit to opponent no. 1 - Teacher, was highly improper and directed the Management to hold domestic inquiry against opponent no. 1. This is practically, after a lapse of few months from the retirement of opponent no. 1. 2.3. 1 - Teacher, was highly improper and directed the Management to hold domestic inquiry against opponent no. 1. This is practically, after a lapse of few months from the retirement of opponent no. 1. 2.3. It is further observed from the record that in view of the prescribed procedure, three member inquiry committee, which includes one independent member from the Gujarat Secondary Board came to be constituted, charge sheet was given on 17.10.2006, evidence was recorded, inquiry was conducted and the committee submitted its report on 25.11.2006 in which, it has been reported that the charges levelled against opponent no. 1 are not proved and suggested exoneration from the same. Accordingly, the school management then on 15.12.2006 sent proposal to the District Education Officer for seeking approval of Management's proposal of exoneration, but then it appears that vide letter dated 09.07.2007, the District Education Officer, asked for details about re-inquiry and having found Teacher as guilty, in re-inquiry which has been conducted by his office i.e. the District Education Officer's office, the Management was asked to effect recovery and to take disciplinary action so that the Teacher may not be entitle for pensionary benefits, which action led opponent no. 1 to prefer application before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, at Ahmedabad being Application No. 247 of 2007. 2.4. It appears from the record that after full fledged adjudication of the said application, and after granting appropriate opportunity to both the sides, the learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 was pleased to allow the application by passing a detailed order, operative portion whereof, is reproduced hereinafter:- "In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this application is allowed. The prayer of the applicant for interest is refused. The D.E.O's order dated 29.06.07 and 22.08.07 are quashed and set aside. The applicant is declared to have retired from services after office hours on 31.05.06 and is entitled to the pensionary benefits. The respondents shall process the case of the applicant for final pension as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from receipt of this order. No order as to costs." 2.5. It is this order, which is made the subject matter of petition by the State authorities, which was numbered as, Special Civil Application no. The respondents shall process the case of the applicant for final pension as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from receipt of this order. No order as to costs." 2.5. It is this order, which is made the subject matter of petition by the State authorities, which was numbered as, Special Civil Application no. 3449 of 2013, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and by judgment and order dated 11.07.2019, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and it is this order of dismissal of petition dated 11.07.2018, is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Krutik Parikh appearing on behalf of the appellant - State has vehemently contended that there was a policy of the Government that the Teachers are prohibited from undertaking private tuitions and it was found by the office of the District Education Officer in his re-inquiry process that opponent no. 1 is guilty of such violation of the Resolution and was found to have undertaken private tuitions while serving as a Teacher and, therefore, the action initiated by the District Education Officer was in consonance with the norms prescribed by the State authorities. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated and though the said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, an error is committed by not appreciating the same and if this order is allowed to be operated, serious prejudice will cause to the public exchequer and would give a wrong signal to the Teachers at large. Resultantly, a request is made that the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Tribunal deserve to be corrected by quashing and setting aside. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Parikh has submitted that the reasons which are assigned by the learned Single Judge are not sufficient enough to justify the ultimate conclusion. As a result of which, the order is not sustainable. Hence, appeal be allowed. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant - authority and having gone through the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and from the observations of the learned Tribunal, prima facie, we found that there is no error crept in decision-making process either by the learned Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. 4. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant - authority and having gone through the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and from the observations of the learned Tribunal, prima facie, we found that there is no error crept in decision-making process either by the learned Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. This opponent no. 1 Teacher was having unblemished service record right from October, 1984 till May, 2006 and unfortunately, it appears that this anti tuition squad raided the premises just before three months and observed that opponent no. 1 was carrying on tuition contrary to the Government policy, but then this breach of Government guidelines appears to have been examined by the Management as well as by three-man committee and in categorical terms twice i.e. in the month of May, 2006 as well as in the month of November, 2006, the Management as well as the Board respectively, have submitted their reports for exoneration and said inquiry was after proper procedure, which has been observed by the learned Tribunal. We have also noticed that not only on two occasions, the said charges levelled against opponent no. 1 was examined first by Management, and then by the independent committee consisting of representative from the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board as well, re-inquiry is conducted at the office of the District Education Officer from his office and then found opponent no. 1 as guilty, but then this issue has been examined by the learned Tribunal and having categorically found that the action after post retirement almost two years cannot be stretched, particularly, when the record indicates that there was no evidence established that opponent no. 1 was giving tuition by charging fees. Such detailed inquiry report as well as report submitted by the Management has been examined vis-à-vis, report of the District Education Officer in re-inquiry at his end and the learned Tribunal found that no case is made out by the District Education Officer to take any action against opponent no. 1 Teacher, hence, allowed the application by appropriate direction as mentioned above. 5. We have noticed from the order of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has also independently examined the issue and also examined the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Tribunal, and found that no case is made out to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction. 1 Teacher, hence, allowed the application by appropriate direction as mentioned above. 5. We have noticed from the order of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has also independently examined the issue and also examined the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Tribunal, and found that no case is made out to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction. While taking such decision, the learned Single Judge has observed that it was merely presumption on the part of the respondent authority that opponent no. 1 was giving private tuition and it was also found that the committee had not found anything against opponent no. 1 about his committing breach of any Rules and found that the District Education Officer without any justification has discarded the report of the competent committee. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the action of the District Education Officer is pre determined action and since opponent no. 1 has already attained the age of superannuation and has already retired and admittedly, no notice or explanation was sought from respondent no. 1, as observed by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with such exercise of jurisdiction. The order of the learned Single Judge is backed by valid reasons and it appears to be in consonance with the peripheral limits of exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having considered at length the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the context of the observations made by the learned Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge, we see no merit in the appeal. 7. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 8. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, civil application for stay does not survive and the same stands dismissed.