ORDER : 1. The appellant appears in-person to argue his case. 2. The appellant, a lecturer in a Government aided college in Ambala, Haryana, was dismissed from service for proved indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct on 15th June, 1982. He unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal (vide judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2010) as well as the writ petition (vide judgment and order dated 27th August, 1993) form the subject of assail in these civil appeals. 3. We have heard the appellant in-person for a considerable length of time. It is argued that: (i) The enquiry officer was not appointed by the legally constituted governing body of the relevant college. (ii) The enquiry proceedings not having been concluded within a period of six months from the date the appellant was placed under suspension, the same lapsed and the enquiry officer who was appointed was rendered functus officio; hence, the proceedings could not have been continued further. (iii) The Principal of the relevant college could not have acted as the complainant, the presenting officer, a witness as well as a judge. 4. Since the appellant has been involved in a long-drawn legal tussle and is an octogenarian, who has been appearing in-person, we have considered the arguments advanced by him with the care and attention the same deserve. 5. We do not, however, find any of the points urged by the appellant to be of any substance. 6. The enquiry officer was appointed by a governing body which was functional at the relevant point of time. The Single Judge of the High Court has dealt with the issue in details and has returned a finding that no exception could have been taken with regard to constitution of the governing body. 7. Insofar as the decision rendered by the High Court (since confirmed by this Court) in the case of S.K. Sood is concerned, which the appellant heavily relies on, we find the same to be distinguishable. There, the college failed to prove that the enquiry officer had indeed been appointed by its governing body. The point raised here is different and, thus, the cited decision does not aid the appellant. 8. There, the college failed to prove that the enquiry officer had indeed been appointed by its governing body. The point raised here is different and, thus, the cited decision does not aid the appellant. 8. Regarding the argument that failure to complete the enquiry within six months of placement of the appellant under suspension rendered the enquiry officer functus officio, we find on perusal of the relevant statute that the consequence of non-completion of enquiry does not lead to lapsing of the enquiry proceedings. At best, the teacher placed under suspension would acquire a right of being reinstated in service. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the enquiry could not have proceeded further. 9. Finally, the Principal of the college did not act as a Judge. It was the enquiry officer, none other than a former judge of the High Court, who found the charges against the appellant to have been established. The report of the enquiry officer was placed before the governing body of the college and upon consideration of the appellant’s comments, the governing body ultimately decided to terminate his service. It is noteworthy that the Director of Higher Education, Haryana also extended an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before he approved the proposal of the governing body which led to his ultimate dismissal from service. 10. We, therefore, find no reason to hold that either the provisions of the relevant statutes were breached, or that the appellant had been proceeded against mala fide or in violation of principles of natural justice, or that the finding of the enquiry officer are perverse, in the matter of disciplinary action taken against the appellant. These are the limited grounds on which judicial review would be available in a case of the present nature to set aside an order of punishment but none of them is attracted. 11. The civil appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed. 12. If any amount on account of subsistence allowance or other due has remained unpaid to the appellant, the respondents including the State of Haryana shall ensure that such payment is released in his favour at an early date. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.