ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of respondent No. 3 vide Proceedings Rc.No. 7632/B3/06, dated 26.08.2008 confirming order of dismissal passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings No. DES/01, dated 02.02.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner will all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (a) Against the Notification issued by respondent no. 5, the Petitioner had applied for the post of SGT at St. Johns Upper Primary School (Aided) Kishanpur, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. (b) At the time of submitting the application, the petitioner had appeared for B.Ed, held in the September, 2000. Having the requisite qualification, petitioner had been appointed on 09.10.2000 by the respondent as SGT (Maths) to take-up Maths classes in St. Johns UPS (Aided) Kishanpur, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. (c) The Management of St. Johns Upper Primary School (Aided) Kishanpur, Hanmakonda, Warangal District had taken a decision to surrender all the aided Schools and shifted 4 SGT persons to different Aided Schools where the vacancies were required except for the one which the petitioner was continuing in. (d) Vide letter dated 15.03.2001, the correspondent of St. Johns School, Hanmakonda requested respondent no. 1 to accept the 1 (one) left over Aided post of SGT. (e) The Government vide Memo No. 3954/PS/1/2001-02 dated 29.06.2001 accepted the 1 (One) left over post of SGT and directed the District Educational Officer, Warangal (D.E.O. hereinafter) to allot the same to CSI, Soma Sundaram Memorial Primary School, Mulugu, Warangal District. (f) Vide Proc.No. RC.No270/00 dated 03.07.2001, St. Johns school relieved the petitioner and the management of CSI, Soma Sundaram Memorial Primary School, Mulugu, Warangal District requested the D.E.O. to allot the petitioner to their school as there was a requirement by addressing a letter dated 29.09.2000. (g) Under the directions of D.E.O. vide Proc.No. 11654/C3/95 dated 03.07.2001, the management ofDiocise, Karimnagar had taken the petitioner into their service. (g) Under the directions of D.E.O. vide Proc.No. 11654/C3/95 dated 03.07.2001, the management ofDiocise, Karimnagar had taken the petitioner into their service. (h) The Petitioner had worked in the CSI, Soma Sundaram Memorial Primary School, Mulugu until March, 2002 and the petitioner while working in the said school had made a representation to the Government to transfer the petitioner from CSI, Soma Sundaram Memorial Primary School, Mulugu CSI, Soma Sundaram Memorial Primary School, Aler, Nalgonda District, as both the schools were under the management of Diocise of Karimnagar. (i) The request of the Petitioner had been accepted by Respondent no. 1 and accorded permission by transferring the petitioner from Mulugu to Aler vide Memo No. 4109/PS-1/2002-1, dated 15.03.2002. The petitioner, in accordance to the new order of the government, had been relieved from service on 30.04.2002 and joined the CSI, High School at Aler, Nalgonda District. (j) Since the petitioner was a graduate in Maths with B.Ed, the petitioner had been promoted to the post as School Assistant vide Proc.No. 3/2003-04 dated 04.07.2003 of respondent no. 5 and the same had been intimated to respondent no. 5. (k) The R.J.D, Hyderabad had approved the promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2004 and the same was intimated to D.E.O, Nalgonda vide Proc.No. 640/B3/2004 dated 07.09.2004. (l) The Correspondent, CSI, Aler had not claimed the petitioner pay bill from the year Feb, 2006 and the petitioner had addressed a letter to respondent no. 5 requesting the respondent to pay the petitioner’s salary from Feb,2006 onwards. (m) Vide Proc.No. 15/E/2005-06 dated 31.03.2006, the Correspondent, CSI High School, Aler had intimated the petitioner that the D.E.O. Warangal vide letter Lr.No. 11653/P2/05 dated 09.02.2006 had directed the Correspondent not to claim the salary of the petitioner from Feb, 2006. The said proceedings of D.E.O., Warangal had not been addressed to the petitioner nor the same was marked to the petitioner. (n) The proceedings No. 11653/P2/05 dated 09.02.2006 of the District Education Officer, Warangal were questioned in the W.P. No. 24997 of 2006 and the court vide its order dated 01.12.2006, directed the respondents to pay the salaries for the period petitioner had worked and continued to work. (n) The proceedings No. 11653/P2/05 dated 09.02.2006 of the District Education Officer, Warangal were questioned in the W.P. No. 24997 of 2006 and the court vide its order dated 01.12.2006, directed the respondents to pay the salaries for the period petitioner had worked and continued to work. (o) Inspite of the orders of the court, to pay the salaries, the respondents have not paid the salaries and the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction had filed the contempt case No. 100 of 2007 and during the pendency of the said Contempt Case, the respondents had paid the salaries to the petitioner from February, 2006 to May, 2007 and hence the contempt case was closed. (p) Petitioner filed another Contempt Case No. 1097 of 2007 for payment of salaries from June, 2007 and the said case was also closed, as salaries were also paid till October, 2007. In the meanwhile, a Suspension order was served on the petitioner by the Respondent No. 5 vide Proc.No. 15/B/2007 dated 07.12.2007. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner vide No. 15/B/07 dated 13.12.2007 asking the petitioner to give explanation for the seven charges stated in the notice and the petitioner had given the explanation on 23.12.2007. (q) The Respondent No. 5 vide Proc.Rc.No. 15/B/07, dated 01.01.2008 issued proceedings against the petitioner and asked to submit the explanation by the petitioner and the petitioner had sent a detailed explanation on 05.01.2008. (r) An Enquiry officer had been appointed by Respondent No. 5 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 11.01.2008. Petitioner had appeared and submitted the explanation denying the charges but the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report without taking into consideration the explanation of petitioner. (s) The Enquiry Officer neither conducted any enquiry nor examined any witness but just issued a questionnaire to answer, to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted a explanation and no documents were marked on behalf of the management, no witness were examined and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to look into the documents, which is against the principles of natural justice. (t) The charges framed against the petitioner were not during the petitioner’s term at the Respondent no. 5 institute. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to satisfy the respondent no 2 & 3 and basing the Enquiry Officer report, respondent no. (t) The charges framed against the petitioner were not during the petitioner’s term at the Respondent no. 5 institute. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to satisfy the respondent no 2 & 3 and basing the Enquiry Officer report, respondent no. 5 passed Proc.No. BES/2001/02.02.2008 dismissing the petitioner from the service. (u) Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent no. 3 under section 70 of Education Act, 1982 and the petitioner had submitted the explanation. The respondent no. 3 without taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner had dismissed the appeal vide No. 7632/B3/06 dated 26.08.2008. (v) By non-supply of vigilance report, prejudice is caused to the petitioner and is a handicap in rebutting the allegations framed against the petitioner. Moreover, it is not correct to say that the petitioner is not qualified for the services during the date of appointment, as the petitioner had already appeared for the B.Ed examination and results are awaiting and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner is not qualified for the post. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. Paragraph 11 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is extracted hereunder: “I submit that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and framed seven charges against Sri B.Ram Mohan and the enquiry officer totally aware of the charges against him. The findings of the enquiry officer. (A) It is clear that the appointment of Sri B.Ram Mohan is highly irregular initially he has managed to get original appointment as SGT in Aided School i.e., St.John Upper Primary school, Kishanpura, Warangal from 09.10.2000 though he had no required qualifications on the date of joining duty. This is illegal. (B) It is clear his appointment is highly irregular and illegal as such he is not eligible for salary on a post which he got by such means as or fair from the affidavit which he submitted to the Hon'ble Court seeking relief for payment of salaries for working period he mislead the Hon'ble Court by furnished false information WP.No. 024997 of 2006. Due to he is not eligible to receive salaries for illegal services. (C) As per the instructions of the Government and the competent authorities the management has requested Sri B.Ram Mohan to pay back the amount but the incumbent has rejected the instructions of the Management. Due to he is not eligible to receive salaries for illegal services. (C) As per the instructions of the Government and the competent authorities the management has requested Sri B.Ram Mohan to pay back the amount but the incumbent has rejected the instructions of the Management. (D) That he has cheated the Management from the very beginning from 09.10.2000 by receiving full salary. (E) The incumbent has also rejected the instructions given in the audit report of 2005-2006 to pay back Rs 3,25,945/-. (F) As per the vigilance report and as per the enquiry report conducted by the management it is proved the Government memo No. 3954/PS-1/2001-02.dt 29.06.2001 tampered. (G) The incumbent has not obtained prior permission of the Management and he has approached the court and filed WP No 24997 of 2006. He has not exhausted the channel of the Management redress his grievances before approach the Hon'ble Court. As per the above findings, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the pre enquiry report to the Correspondent and recommended for taking further disciplinary action against Sri B.Ram Mohan, On the basis of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer who has appointed by the management and as per the vigilance report and as per the instructions issued by the Government and competent authorities the petitioner was dismissed from the service vide pro Rc.No. DES/001, dt 02.02.2008 by the Secretary Correspondent C.S.I Karimnagar Diocese as the Secretary/Correspondent is the competent authorities to take disciplinary action against the employee in private and aided institutions. As per the report submitted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, the Principal Secretary for School Education has requested the Director of School Education for taking departmental disciplinary action and recover the amount of Rs 3, 25,945/- drawn up to 9/2005 and also recover duly working out for subsequent period also besides dismissing of Sri B.Ram Mohan from service. As per the instructions received from authorities the same memo communicated to the District Educational Officer Nalgonda, and requested to take departmental disciplinary action against Sri B Ram Mohan. The District Educational Officer Nalgonda has also issued instructions to the Correspondent for taking departmental disciplinary action against Sri B.Ram Mohan vide D.E.O pro.Rc.No. 9729/A7/2006 dated 29.12.2017. As per the above instructions the Correspondent has taken action against B.Ram Mohan dismissing him from service.” PERUSED THE RECORD 5. The District Educational Officer Nalgonda has also issued instructions to the Correspondent for taking departmental disciplinary action against Sri B.Ram Mohan vide D.E.O pro.Rc.No. 9729/A7/2006 dated 29.12.2017. As per the above instructions the Correspondent has taken action against B.Ram Mohan dismissing him from service.” PERUSED THE RECORD 5. Proceedings of the Diocesan Education Secretary Karimnagar issued vide No. DES/01, dated 02.02.2008, is extracted hereunder: “Sri. B.Ram Mohan, SA, CSI High School Alir, Nalgonda dist was kept under suspension through the Ref 3 cited on the following charges: 1.His original appointment as SGT (aided) in St John's UPS Naimnagar (Kishanpura) Hanamkonda Warangal on 09.10.2000 was irregular as per the report of the enquiry officer (DEO Warangal) Rc.No. 11653/A2/2006, Dud 27.04.06. 2. Receiving salary from the date of appointment is illegal. 3. He has been cheating the management all these years by receiving the salary for which he is not eligible. 4. Rejecting the instructions of the management to pay back the amount of Rs 3,25,945.00 and to request to withdraw the instructions is totally illegal 5. He was not having the basic qualifications i c., B.Ed. on his first appointment on 9.10.2000 as per Proc Rc.No. 11653/A2/05, Dt 27.04.2006. This is irregular, illegal. 6. Sri B.Ram Mohan's first appointment is bogus and false as mentioned in the 2005-up audit report of CSIHS Alir of the Dist.Audit Officer, State Audit Nalgonda. 7. As per the audit report above Sri.B.Ram Mohan should pay back Rs.3,25,945-00 to the management to be credited to Govt. account. This is not done by him. In his replay dated 07 01.2008 he denied all the seven (07) charges. The Chairman of the Diocesan Education Society Karimnagar appointed Enquiry Officer Accordingly enquiry was conducted on 12.01.2008 and the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer through his letter dated 16.01.2008 and all the charges have been proved in the enquiry Report. While communicating the enquiry report to Sri B.Ram Mohan, show cause notice was also issued to him for his reply through the ref 10th cited above But he denied all the charges proved by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, as per the final recommendations of the enquiry officer in the ref. 10 cited and as per the instructions given in the Proc. Of the RJDSE Hyderabad, and DEO Nalgonda proc. (ref.2, 7 & 8th cited) based on the findings and recommendations in the Vigilance report in the ref. Therefore, as per the final recommendations of the enquiry officer in the ref. 10 cited and as per the instructions given in the Proc. Of the RJDSE Hyderabad, and DEO Nalgonda proc. (ref.2, 7 & 8th cited) based on the findings and recommendations in the Vigilance report in the ref. 1 cited above, Sri B Ram Mohan, S.A. CSI High School Alir Nalgonda Dist. is hereby dismissed from service with immediate effect.” 6. Proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad issued vide Rc.No. 7632/B3/2006 Dated 26.08.2008 read as under: “Therefore, as per the findings of the enquiry officer and based on the recommendations in vigilance report that Sri B.Ram Mohan, SA(Maths) CSI High school, Alair, Nalgonda Dist., was dismissed from service by the Management as per Sec.75 of A.P.Edn. Act of 1982 and Rule-19 of G.O.Ms.No. 4, Education, Dt:01-01-94 vide proceedings of the Diocesan Educational Secretary, Karimnagar vide reference 3rd cited. The Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement has conducted a detailed enquiry in this particular case and recommended to Government to recover the amount of Rs. 3,25,945/- up to sept. 05 and subsequent period also beside dismissal of appellant from service. In view of the above circumstances the appeal of Sri. B. Ram Mohan is hereby disposed off since the request of the applicant is not feasible to consider and the order issued by the Management holds good.” 7. The specific averments made in petitioner’s representation dated 21.02.2008 addressed to the Regional Joint Director, School Education, Hyderabad in pursuance to the dismissal order dated 02.02.2008 issued against the petitioner reads as under: “That the Enquiry is not conducted in accordance with rule principles of natural justice has been violated. Documents relied upon by the enquiry have not supplied to me. No witnesses have been examined in support of Charge. The enquiry officer had been examined I would have cross examined them to elicit truth or other-wise. Apart from this the dismissal order issued in D.E.S.0/7 dt.2.2.08 is not in conformity with the section 83 of the Ddn. Act. The impugned dismissal order is also shows non- application of mind and issued under the threat and directions of the Higher authorities. Therefore the impugned order is not Justainable for extroneous consideration.” 8. Apart from this the dismissal order issued in D.E.S.0/7 dt.2.2.08 is not in conformity with the section 83 of the Ddn. Act. The impugned dismissal order is also shows non- application of mind and issued under the threat and directions of the Higher authorities. Therefore the impugned order is not Justainable for extroneous consideration.” 8. The specific averments pleaded by the petitioner at Paragraph 11 of the affidavit reads as under: “(11) I submit that the Enquiry Officer never conducted any enquiry nor he examined any witness, but issued a questionnaire to me and asked me to answer. Accordingly, I submitted a suitable explanation. The Enquiry Officer not substantiated any charges levelled against me with cogent material and no documents were marked on behalf of the Management, and no witness was examined and no opportunity was given to me look into the documents and cross-examined the witnesses. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law, principles of natural justice and is violated.” 9. Section 83 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 read as under: Section 83: Retrenchment of employees - Where retrenchment of any employee is rendered necessary by the management or competent authority consequent on any change relating to education or course of instruction or to any other matter, such retrenchment may be, effected with the prior approval of the competent authority or the next higher authority, as the case may be. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 10. It is specifically averred in the petitioner’s affidavit, in particular, at para 11 as follows: “I submit that the Enquiry Officer never conducted any enquiry nor he examined any witness, but issued a questionnaire to me and asked me to answer. Accordingly, I submitted a suitable explanation. The Enquiry Officer not substantiated any charges leveled against me with cogent material and documents were marked on behalf of the management, and no witness was examined and no opportunity was given to me look into the documents and cross-examined the witnesses. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law, principles of natural justice and is violated.” 11. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically averred at Para 11 of the Petitioner’s affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 12. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law, principles of natural justice and is violated.” 11. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically averred at Para 11 of the Petitioner’s affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 12. In the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad reported in Radhe Kant Khare vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. 2003 (2) LLJ 725 in particular at para 22 reads as under: “22. From the above facts, it appears to us that an illegal procedure was followed by the enquiry officer inasmuch as on 12.6.1985, he called the petitioner for giving his statement without first examining the witnesses against the petitioner in his presence. As mentioned in the decisions already referred to above, ordinarily the witnesses against the charge-sheeted employee must be examined first in his presence and it is illegal to straightaway ask the employee to lead his evidence first. This procedure Itself is violative of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it appears from the above facts that no witness against the petitioner was examined in his presence nor was he given opportunity of cross-examining them. All that was done was that the petitioner was called on 12.10.1985 to give his statement. It is also evident that the report of Najib Ahmad dated 30.1.1985 was not supplied to the petitioner, which also violates the principles of natural justice.” 13. A bare perusal of the order dated 02.02.2008 of the DIOCESAN Education Secretary, CSI, Karimnagar Dioces, Karimnagar vide proceedings No. DES/01, clearly indicates that the petitioner while working as SA, CSI High School, Alir, Nalgonda District was kept under suspension through proceedings dated 07.12.2007 of Correspondent, CSI, High School (Aided) Alir and a bare perusal of the same indicates that seven specific charges had been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was kept under suspension. The petitioner vide reply dated 07.01.2008 had denied all the seven charges. The petitioner vide reply dated 07.01.2008 had denied all the seven charges. This Court opines that a bare perusal of the said proceedings dated 02.02.2008 passed by the 5th respondent clearly indicates that the same is passed without assigning any reasons except stating that as per final recommendations of the Enquiry Officer dated 16.01.2008 and as per the instructions dated 24.12.2007, 29.12.2007 and 22.01.2008, and based on the findings and recommendations in the Vigilance Report dated 05.01.2006 of Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement) E.O. Prl. Secretary to Government, GAD, the petitioner had been dismissed from service with immediate effect. 14. In the present case, admittedly both the orders impugned dated 02.02.2008 passed by the 5th respondent and the impugned order dated 26.08.2008 of the 3rd respondent are unreasoned and cryptic and there is no discussion at all indicating the consideration of the petitioner’s explanation. 15. In the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad reported in Garg Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2021 (3) ALD 83 (TS) in particular at paras 9 and 10 it is observed as under: “9. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of occasions, have held that any authority/court/quasi judicial 4 authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party nor Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has weighed with the said authority either for dismissing or allowing the application of the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out the reason either for allowing or dismissing the contention/application/case.” 16. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “....while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order .... .... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant.” 17. This Court also takes note of the fact that the dismissal order passed against the petitioner is dated 02.02.2008 and the respondent authority replied upon primarily on the findings and recommendations in proceedings Rc.No. 1016/V and E/D4/2005 i.e. the Vigilance Report No. 3, dated 05.01.2006 of the Director General (Vig. And Enforcement E.O. PRC.SECY to GOVT.GAD, which admittedly was behind the back of the petitioner and not supplied to the petitioner. a) In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India and Others vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, 1993 (5) SLR 593 in particular, a portion of para 4 reads as under: “But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. From letter produced by the respondent, the authenticity of which has been verified by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it appears the Bank turned down the request of the respondent for a copy of CVC recommendation as, 'The correspondence with the Central Vigilance Commission is a privileged communication and cannot be forwarded as the order passed by the Appointing Authority deals with the recommendation to the CVC which is considered sufficient'. Taking action against as employee on confidential document which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that the reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him the High Court in our opinion did not commit any error in quashing the order. No supply of the Vigilance report was one of the ground taken in appeal. But that was so because the respondent prior to service of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority did not have any occasion to know that CVC had submitted some report against him. The submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General that CVC recommendations are confidential copy, of which, could not be supplied cannot be accepted. Recommendations of Vigilance prior to initiation of proceedings are different that CVC recommendation which was the basis of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.” 18. This Court opines that the disciplinary authority in the present case recorded a finding in an enquiry which itself was vitiated on account of violation of Principles of Natural Justice since no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the copy of the Vigilance report No. 3 dated 05.01.2006 was not supplied to the petitioner nor the petitioner has cross examined the witnesses. In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2017 SC 330 in Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, in particular at para 7 reads as under: “7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2017 SC 330 in Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, in particular at para 7 reads as under: “7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The respondent’s case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the Disciplinary Authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the Appellate Authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. All told the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have failed in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.” 19. All told the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have failed in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.” 19. The petitioner has specifically averred at Para 14 of the affidavit filed in the present writ petition that there was no prior approval by the competent Authority as contemplated under Section 79(1) of the Act 1 of 1982. In the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad reported in E. Uddanda Ramaiah vs. V.R.S and Y.R.N. College and Another, 1995 (2) ALD 364 in particular, a portion of para 11 reads as under: “after dealing with various provisions of the Act, the Bench has observed as follows: “in other words, the scheme of the act is such that it provides for regulation of the conduct of private institutions as also creates obligations on them. Though private in name, the institutions have rights and duties conferred by the statutes; and their functioning is regulated by the statutory provisions. Even a non-aided institution is governed by such regulatory provisions. We are of the opinion that institutions of this nature are liable to be compelled to discharge their statutory obligations just as much as they are entitled to seek the assistance of court for enforcement of the rights conferred under the statue. The Bench has referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court including all Saints High School vs. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1980 SC 1042 and has observed that in that case the Supreme Court upheld section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Central) Act (Act 11 of 1975) which required the management to obtain prior approval of the Competent Authority if retrenchment of a teacher was rendered necessary by any order of the Government relating to education or course of instruction or any other matter. In All Saints High school Case (Supra) Chief Justice Chandrachud upheld the validity of Sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private educational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975 which is in pari-materia with Section 83 of the Act and observed that Section 6 aimed at affording a minimal guarantee of security of tenure to teachers by eschewing the passing of mala fide orders in the garb of retrenchment.” 20. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated 16.08.2008 of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No. 7632/B3/2006 in confirming the orders passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings No. DES/01, dated 02.02.2008 also clearly indicates that the same is passed mechanically without application of mind and without assigning any reasons by simply reiterating that the Director General (V&E) had conducted detailed enquiry in the particular case and recommended to Government to recover the amount of Rs.3,25,945/- up to September, 2005 and subsequent period also besides dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner was not given free chance to hear the evidence in support of the charges and to put the relevant questions by way of cross examination. The petitioner was not provided an opportunity to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence. 21. Therefore, this Court opines that both the orders impugned in the present writ petition i.e. proceedings of respondent No. 3 vide Proceedings Rc.No. 7632/B3/06, dated 26.08.2008 confirming order of dismissal passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings No. DES/01, dated 02.02.2008 are not reasoned orders since the same do not indicate any precise reasons for passing such orders and that non recording of reasons hampers the proper administration of justice the same need to be set aside applying the principle laid down in the judgments reported in Radhe Kant Khare vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. 2003 (2) LLJ 725 , Garg Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2021 (3) ALD 83 (TS), G. Chinna Yogeswara Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2022 (3) ALT 415 (DB), Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, 2017 SC 330, State Bank of India and Others vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, 1993 (5) SLR 593 and E. Uddanda Ramaiah vs. V.R.S and Y.R.N. College and Another, 1995 (2) ALD 364 (referred to and extracted above) on the various different legal points discussed in paras above and duly taking into consideration the specific averments made by the petitioner in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned proceedings of respondent No. 3 vide Proceedings Rc.No. 7632/B3/06, dated 26.08.2008 confirming order of dismissal passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings No. DES/01, dated 02.02.2008 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, when the dismissal order is set aside, i.e. from the date of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.