ORDER : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order of the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No. 1/2020 dated 05.09.2020 by which, the Tribunal declines to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order of termination is not a punitive order and the fact that it not being the punitive order, the appeal would not become maintainable before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Sachin B.S. appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Sri. M. Sudhakar Pai, appearing for respondent No. 2/caveator. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, the petitioner pursuant to a Notification issued by respondent No. 2 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment of the post of Lecturer in Economics, finding herself eligible applied to the said post and pursuant to a selection process was appointed on 01.06.2017 as a fulltime lecturer in Economics for a period of 5 years from 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2012 with a consolidated pay of Rs. 17,000/- per month. 4. It transpires that the petitioner while making an application, according to respondent No. 2 had played fraud with respondent No. 2 in submitting an application, which was fake with regard to her educational qualification and on that ground, respondent No. 2 lodged a private complaint in C.C. No. 123/2019 before the JMFC, Bantwal. On registration of the aforesaid case before the competent criminal Court, an order dated 01.06.2020 was passed against the petitioner removing her from service. The petitioner questioned the said order before the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No. 1/2020. The Tribunal, after recording a finding that the order was on the face of it a termination simplicitor and was not punitive, following the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Management of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital vs. Dr. M. Somashekar, ILR 2004 Kar. 37, rejected the appeal. It is this rejection of the appeal by the Tribunal that is called in question in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order on face of it, is stigmatic and the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. 6. M. Somashekar, ILR 2004 Kar. 37, rejected the appeal. It is this rejection of the appeal by the Tribunal that is called in question in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order on face of it, is stigmatic and the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the order though refers to a sentence regarding the criminal acts of the petitioner and would submit that it is a termination simplicitor and the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 7. Before embarking upon the facts of the case, it is germane to notice that the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. M. Somashekar (supra), the learned Division Bench after considering the facts of the case obtaining before it at paragraph-11 sums up the issues as follows: 11. We may sum up the position regarding remedies available to an employee (including a teacher) of Private Educational Institution thus: (i) The remedy against an order imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, is by way of appeal to the Educational Appellate Tribunal under Section 94(1). (ii) The remedy against an order imposing any other penalty, is by way of an appeal to the competent Authority under Section 94(5) with a further appeal to the Educational Appellate Tribunal under Section 94(7). (iii) The remedy against any order of management which is not punitive in nature, is by way of revision to the State Government under Section 131. (iv) Where an employee contends and establishes that the order of termination simplicitor or retrenchment, as the case may be, passed by the Management is really an order imposing punishment/penalty of dismissal or removal, and files an appeal under Section 94(1), the Tribunal can go behind the form of the order and decide upon the true nature of the order, that is whether the order is merely what it purports to be, or whether it is cloak for punishment/penalty, either as a disciplinary measure or as vicimisation. If it concludes that the order is a cloak for dismissal or removal, the appeal will be maintainable and it can proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. If it concludes that the order is a cloak for dismissal or removal, the appeal will be maintainable and it can proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. (Emphasis supplied) Clause 3 of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Division Bench indicates that an order which is not punitive in nature will have to be challenged by way of a revision before the Government under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) and an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal would not be maintainable and not by filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 94(1) of the said Act. Therefore, the facts obtaining in the case at hand will have to be tested on the bedrock of the principles that is law laid down by the learned Division Bench in the case of Dr. M. Somashekar (supra). 8. Certain clauses that are germane in the order of appointment of the petitioner are extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference: “1. You are appointed as a full time lecturer in Economics on 01.06.2017 for a period of 5 years i.e. 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2022. 2. You will be paid a salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month. Your increment shall become payable at the end of every completed year of service depending on your satisfactory performance and it shall not be claimed as a matter of right. 12. This contract of employment is terminable either by you or the management by giving two mounths notice in writing or by payment of two months’ salary in lieu thereof. You shall maintain decency and standard, and guide the students in this regard. Accordingly, you shall not involve yourself in any illegal or immoral activities. 22. The management is vested with the authority to terminate you from the service without any notice if the conditions of the contract are violated.” (Emphasis supplied) In terms of the afore-extracted clause, the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to a selection process initiated by respondent No. 2 and was appointed as a full time lecturer in the discipline of Economics for a period of 5 years from 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2022. 9. The acts of the petitioner led to the order of termination being passed by respondent No. 2. 9. The acts of the petitioner led to the order of termination being passed by respondent No. 2. The order of termination reads as follows: “You are also aware that the criminal acts will affect the future of the students, I am directed by the Management to inform you that your service for the institution is no more required and to discontinue your service and accordingly your service is discontinued with immediate effect. You are informed accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. A cursory perusal at the order of the termination dated 01.06.2020 would in unmistakable terms indicate that it is stigmatic as the words that are used in the order are that the criminal acts of the petitioner would effect the future of the students. This without a shadow of a doubt would cast a stigma on the carrier of the petitioner. 11. Therefore, the appeal under Section 94(1) of the said Act was maintainable before the Tribunal. The reasoning of the Tribunal for arriving at a conclusion that the order is termination simplicitor is as a misinterpretation of the law laid down by the learned Division qua the order of termination. 12. Therefore, the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order of the Tribunal dated 01.06.2020 is quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Tribunal to consider the case on its merit and pass appropriate orders within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.