JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge at Raichur in EAT 2/2004 dtd. 25/8/2009 produced at Annexure-A. b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all other consequential benefits. c. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner was working as a Principal of Smt.Giraja Mahila Pre-University College, Sindhanur, run by the respondent-Society from the year 1994. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of ten charges relating to misappropriation of monies, highhandedness etc. under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules 1978. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted a report confirming the delinquency against the petitioner to having been proven on 10/10/2003. A 2 nd show cause notice came to be issued on 26/7/2004 which was replied to by the petitioner on 12/8/2004, the disciplinary authority not acceptable to the reply dismissed the petitioner from service on 30/8/2004 which came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Sec. 94 of the Karnataka Education Act before the Education Appellate Tribunal at Raichur in EAT No.2/2004 which came to be dismissed on 25/8/2009. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Sri.S.S.Mamadapur., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 3.1. that on coming into force of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, on 1/6/1995 vide notification bearing No.ED2MES95 dtd. 30/5/1995, the Karnataka Private Educational Institution (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 has been repealed on account of the repeal of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act 1975 and in terms of Sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 146 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and on this ground, he submits that the enquiry proceedings would not have proceeded against the petitioner under the Rules of 1978 which should repeal on 1/6/2003 in as much as, the enquiry was conducted from 10/10/2003 to 12/7/2004 after the repeal of the Rules of 1974. 3.2. 1 of Sec. 146 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and on this ground, he submits that the enquiry proceedings would not have proceeded against the petitioner under the Rules of 1978 which should repeal on 1/6/2003 in as much as, the enquiry was conducted from 10/10/2003 to 12/7/2004 after the repeal of the Rules of 1974. 3.2. The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003 having come into force on 7/8/2003, any proceedings initiated under the Rules of 1978 ought to have been continued under the Rules of 2003. In the present case, the proceedings having been completed under the Rules of 1978, when the Rules of 2003 had come into force, is not sustainable and as such, the enquiry conducted is improper. 3.3. This aspect having been brought to the notice of enquiry officer, the enquiry officer ought to have taken the same into consideration. The enquiry officer not having taken into consideration when it was brought to the notice of EAT, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration, which it has not done, therefore, rendering the order passed by the EAT contrary to law. On this ground it is submitted that the petition is required to be allowed and that the reliefs sought for is to be granted. 4. Per contra, Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit: 4.1. that merely on account of the repeal of the Act of 1975, the Rules of 1978 did not get repealed on 1/6/2003 and in this regard, he relies upon the sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 146 of the Act of 1983 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; "146. Repeal and saving:- (1) *** (2) *** (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all rules, orders, notifications, Grant-in-aid Codes, appointments, schemes, bye-laws, regulations, official memoranda-circulars or any other orders made or issued before the commencement of this Act and in force on the date of such commencement providing for or relating to any of the matters for the furtherance of which this Act is enacted shall continue to be inforce and effective as if they are made under the corresponding provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken or any notification, Grant-in-aid code, rule, order, appointment. scheme, bye-law, regulation, official memorandum, circular or any other order made or issued under this Act. 4.2. scheme, bye-law, regulation, official memorandum, circular or any other order made or issued under this Act. 4.2. By placing reference on the above sub-sec. 3 Sec. 146, he submits that all Rules, orders, notifications etc., made under the Act would continue to be in force notwithstanding the Act of 1983 coming into force unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the Act of 1983. On these grounds, he submits that the Rules of 1978 are protected by sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 146, it would continue to be in force and applicability cannot be questioned. It is only when the Rules would be superseded, the superseded Rules would apply. 4.3. In the present case, the first show cause notice and charge sheet having been issued on 4/7/2003 under the Rules of 1978, which had been continued under the rules of 1978 and dismissal order passed cannot be found fault with and on these ground he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 5. Sri.Shivakumar Tengli, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the issue is between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the Government is only a formal party. 6. Heard Sri.S.S.Mamdapur., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivakumar Tengli, learned AGA for respondent No.2 and perused papers. 7. The points that would arise for determination are: 1. Whether the Rules of 1978 would stand repealed on coming into force of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983? 2. Whether the Rules of 1978 would stand superseded by the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003? 3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 4/7/2003 would be continued and completed under the Rules of 1978 or would have to be continued under the Rules of 2003? 4. Whether the order passed by the EAT in EAT No.2/2004 requires any interference at the hands of this Court on account of the legal infirmities? 5. What order? 8. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Rules of 1978 would stand repealed on coming into force of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983? 8.1. Sec. 146 of Act of 1983 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 146. 5. What order? 8. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Rules of 1978 would stand repealed on coming into force of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983? 8.1. Sec. 146 of Act of 1983 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 146. Repeal and Savings.- (1) The Karnataka Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 9 of 1961) and the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1975) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, any act or thing done under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done under this Act and may be continued and completed under the corresponding provisions of this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all rules, orders, notifications, Grant-in-aid Codes, appointments, schemes, bye-laws, regulations, official memoranda-circulars or any other orders made or issued before the commencement of this Act and in force on the date of such commencement providing for or relating to any of the matters for the furtherance of which this Act is enacted shall continue to be inforce and effective as if they are made under the corresponding provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken or any notification, Grant-in-aid code, rule, order, appointment. scheme, bye-law, regulation, official memorandum, circular or any other order made or issued under this Act. 8.2. The Karnataka Education Act, 1983 came into force on 1/6/1995. Thus, on the Act of 1983 coming into force, the Act of 1975 stood repealed. However, sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 146 makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1983, all Rules, orders, notifications, Grant-in-aid Codes, appointments, schemes, bye-laws, regulations, official memorandum, circular or any other order made or issued before the commencement of the Act of 1983 would continue to be in force and effective as if it was made under the corresponding provisions of Act of 1983, unless and until superseded directing done or any action taken etc., under the Act of 1983. 8.3. Thus, it is clear that until a positive Act is done under the Act of 1983, the earlier Rules would continue to be in force which would include the Rules of 1978. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that by virtue of sub-sec. 8.3. Thus, it is clear that until a positive Act is done under the Act of 1983, the earlier Rules would continue to be in force which would include the Rules of 1978. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that by virtue of sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 146, the Rules of 1978 did not stand repealed and continued to exist and operate even thereafter until a positive Act was done by the State. 9. Answer to point No.2: Whether the Rules of 1978 would stand superseded by the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003? 9.1. The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules 2003 came into force on 7/8/2003 on being published in the Karnataka Gazette. Chapter VII of these Rules relates to terms and conditions of service of employees in Private Aided Educational Institutions, discipline etc., Thus these rules of the year 2003 can be said to be an Act or an order made under the Act of 1983 which will having the effect of supersession of the rules of 1978 made under the earlier Act which continued to be in force by the deeming fiction created under the sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 146. 9.2. The deeming fixation therefore came to an end with the coming into force of Rules of 2003 on 7/8/2003 and from that date the Rules of 1978 became inapplicable. 9.3. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that on the coming into force of Rules of 2003, Rules of 1978 stood superseded. 10. Answer to point No.3: Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 4/7/2003 would be continued and completed under the Rules of 1978 or would have to be continued under the Rules of 2003? 10.1.In view of the Rules of 1978 being in force until the Rules of 2003 coming into force, action could be taken under the Rules of 1978 until 7/8/2003. It is in pursuance thereof that the charge sheet was issued on 4/7/2003 under the Rules of 1978. In terms of sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 146, the repeal of the Rules of 1978 or super session of Rules of 1978 having occurred on 7/8/2003, any act which had been commenced under the Rules of 1978 would have to be continued and completed under the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1983 which would mean and include the Rules of 2003. 2 of Sec. 146, the repeal of the Rules of 1978 or super session of Rules of 1978 having occurred on 7/8/2003, any act which had been commenced under the Rules of 1978 would have to be continued and completed under the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1983 which would mean and include the Rules of 2003. 10.2.Thus, even though the charge sheet had been issued on 4/7/2003 when the Rules of 1978 was in force, on coming into force of Rules of 2003 on 7/8/2003 any action already initiated had to be continued under the Rules of 2003. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that once Rules of 2003 come into force any action initiated under the Rules of 1978 would have to be continued and completed under the Rules of 2003 and could not be continued under the Rules of 1978. 11. Answer to point No.4:Whether the order passed by the EAT in EAT No.2/2004 requires any interference at the hands of this Court on account of the legal infirmities? 11.1.The Education Appellate Tribunal having been put on notice by the petitioner about effect of Rules of 2003 the EAT ought to have considered these aspects in the proper perspective and ought to have come to a conclusion that the enquiry was to be conducted on 4/7/2003 in terms of Rules of 2003 but has misapplied itself and come to a conclusion that by virtue of sub- Sec. 3 of Sec. 146, any proceedings initiated against under the Rules 1978 would be continued and completed under the Rules of 1978. While doing so the Tribunal has completely lost sight of sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 146 which mandates that any action initiated prior to the repeal would have to be continued and completed under the corresponding provision of the Act of 1983 which would include the Rules of 2003. Such being the case, the order of dismissal passed by the EAT in EAT No.2/2004 is not sustainable. 2 of Sec. 146 which mandates that any action initiated prior to the repeal would have to be continued and completed under the corresponding provision of the Act of 1983 which would include the Rules of 2003. Such being the case, the order of dismissal passed by the EAT in EAT No.2/2004 is not sustainable. 11.2.Considering that there are some confusions in lacune as regards the manner in which proceedings are to be continued, I am of the considered opinion that taking into account the seriousness of the allegations which had been made as also the conduct of the petitioner in not leading evidence and/or not participating in the proceedings before the concerned enquiry officer, the earlier charge sheet which had been issued on 4/7/2003 and the reply issued by the petitioner on 14/7/2003 not being acceptable, a fresh enquiry would have to be conducted in terms of Rules of 2003 and completed under the said provisions. As such I pass the following. 12. Answer to point No.5: What order? 12.1.Writ petition is partly allowed. 12.2.A certiorari is issued, the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge at Raichur in EAT No.2/2004 dtd. 25/8/2009 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. 12.3.Respondents are directed to appoint a fresh enquiry officer in terms of Rules of 2003. The enquiry officer shall comply with all the requirements of Rules of 2003 and the Act of 1983 in conduct and completion of the enquiry proceedings. 12.4.The enquiry not being conducted in a proper and required manner, the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence wages from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.