JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. By way of present petition the petitioner herein invokes the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 on the ground that the impugned CAV judgment is without taking into consideration the record of the case, evidence adduced by the parties and without appreciating the grievance of the petitioner raised in the said application, praying for the following reliefs :- “A. be pleased to admit and allow the petition; B. be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application no. 388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003, the order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent-School Management Management and further be pleased to allow both the applications bearing no.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 with all the reliefs prayed therein; C. be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the C.A.V. Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application no.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 and further be pleased to stay the order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent School Management, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; D. be pleased to direct the respondent-School Management to continue the petitioner in service as before and further be pleased to direct the respondent-School Management to protect all the legal rights of the petitioner, including the pay and pay-scales; E. be pleased to pass such other and further orders which may deem fit in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner;” 2. Heard Mr. Dev Patel, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Neeraj Vasu, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Mamta Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :- 3.1 The petitioner is holding qualification of B.A., B.Ed. and came to be appointed in the respondent-School as Assistant Teacher for the first time on 4.6.1985. Mamta Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :- 3.1 The petitioner is holding qualification of B.A., B.Ed. and came to be appointed in the respondent-School as Assistant Teacher for the first time on 4.6.1985. Prior to his joining the respondent-School, the petitioner had worked as Senior Clerk in the K.G. Sadhna Vinay Mandir, Paldi, Ahmedabad from 23.6.1975 to 3.6.1985. 3.2 On completion of ten years of service as teacher in the respondent-School, the petitioner came to be appointed as Head Master in the very school by order dated 6.10.1995. Upon appointed as Head Master, dispute arose between the petitioner and the Management and the petitioner was being harassed by the Management for the reasons best known to the respondent-School Management. The respondent-School Management dragged the petitioner in disputes and started finding faults with the petitioner. 3.3 The respondent-School Management was not allowing the petitioner to resume his duty with effect from 15.12.1997 and the petitioner was forced to be on leave by submitting the leave report and salaries of the petitioner were withheld on that ground from June, 1998 onwards. 3.4 The petitioner was forced to tender resignation on intimidation by the Directors of the respondent-School namely Shri Rajendra Patel and Shri L.G. Purohit. 3.5 The petitioner tendered first leave report because of the petitioner’s father’s ill health from 15.12.1997 to 24.1.1998. On completion of leave when the petitioner was to resume his duty on 27.1.1998, both the aforesaid Directors threatened the petitioner and compelled the petitioner to tender leave report from 27.1.1998 to 28.2.1998. 3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of this leave report, the petitioner went to report for duty on 2.3.1998, and has in fact joined his duty and signed the muster, however immediately the aforesaid two directors insulted, and abused the petitioner, and in view thereof the petitioner was compelled to submit leave report for the period from 03.03.1998 to 11.04.1998. On the very same day, the respondent-School Management also issued Form no.16 to the petitioner for Income Tax purpose. On the very same day, the respondent-School Management also issued Form no.16 to the petitioner for Income Tax purpose. 3.7 The petitioner upon receiving threats on telephone also and even for the incident by which the father and family members of the petitioner were threatened, a criminal complaint bearing Criminal Case No.373 of 1998 came to be filed on 25.03.1998 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. 3.8 The petitioner waited for some time so that the respondent School Management to stop harassing the petitioner but as the action of the respondent- School Management became intolerable, the petitioner was compelled to send an R.P.A.D. letter dated 31.03.1998 to the District Education Officer with respect to the ill-treatment being meted out to the petitioner by the respondent School Management. The petitioner’s salary from June 1998 was also withheld. 3.9 The petitioner was served with the show cause notice on 23.7.1998 which was duly replied by the petitioner on 5.8.1998 through his advocate. The second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.08.1998 under the signature of the President of the Trust, which was also duly replied to by the petitioner on 08.09.1998. 3.10 On one hand, the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duty and on the other hand, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. 3.11 The petitioner in view of the aforesaid, approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.388 of 1998, which was admitted and by way of interim relief in terms of paragraph no.8(3) the respondent School Management was restrained from obstructing the petitioner. Even an application for breach of injunction was also filed since the respondent-School Management failed to comply with the interim order. 3.12 The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 30.10.1998 with effect from 05.11.1998. The said suspension was also ratified by the respondent No.3 - District Education Officer. 3.13 The respondent-School Management initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner being dissatisfied with the reply tendered by the petitioner. Accordingly the respondent-School Management constituted an Inquiry Committee comprising of three persons namely, Shri Jitubhai Shah, representative from the panel of GSEB; Shri Sudhirbhai Shah, representative of respondent School Management and Shri Kunjbihari Barot, representative of the petitioner. 3.14 Shri Rajendra Patel, Director of the respondent-School was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 3.3.1999. Accordingly the respondent-School Management constituted an Inquiry Committee comprising of three persons namely, Shri Jitubhai Shah, representative from the panel of GSEB; Shri Sudhirbhai Shah, representative of respondent School Management and Shri Kunjbihari Barot, representative of the petitioner. 3.14 Shri Rajendra Patel, Director of the respondent-School was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 3.3.1999. Inquiry was held and during the pendency of the inquiry, the respondent-School Management requested for changing of the Inquiry Officer, which was rejected by the District Education Officer. 3.15 The said rejection order was challenged by the respondent-School Management by way of filing Special Civil Application No.5874 of 1998 which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.08.1999. 3.16 The said order was assailed by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.103 of 2000 which came to be disposed of by order dated 15.06.2001 in view of the consensus arrived between the parties. 3.17 The Joint Inquiry Report dated 24.07.2002 was submitted by two inquiry officers recording the finding of 13 out of 16 charges having been found proved and the inquiry report dated 26.07.2002 was also submitted by the third member of the Committee giving a clean chit to the delinquent ie. the petitioner. 3.18 The respondent-School Management accepted the inquiry report submitted by the majority members and a second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 01.08.2002, which was duly replied to by the petitioner on 13.08.2002. 3.19 By order dated 21.08.2002, the respondent-School Management resolved to dismiss the petitioner from his service and a proposal dated 23.08.2002 was sent to the District Education Officer for approval of the said action. 3.20 The approval was not communicated within a period of 45 days. As the District Education Officer did not communicate the decision within a period of 45 days, on the basis of the theory of deemed approval, the order of dismissal was passed on 08.10.2002. 3.21 The District Education Officer thereafter held hearing on 8.10.2002 wherein accorded approval by order dated 18.2.2003. The said order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an Application No.123 of 2003 before the learned Tribunal. 3.22 Both the applications i.e. Application No.388 of 1998 and Application No.123 of 2023 were heard together and the learned Tribunal reserved for judgment. The said order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an Application No.123 of 2003 before the learned Tribunal. 3.22 Both the applications i.e. Application No.388 of 1998 and Application No.123 of 2023 were heard together and the learned Tribunal reserved for judgment. In the meantime, on 17.11.2006, the petitioner tendered written submissions to the effect that the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Committee after conclusion of the litigation in the Hon'ble High Court were illegal because there was no order or resolution passed by the respondent-School Management reappointing Shri Sudhirbhai Shah as their representative because earlier by their resolution recorded in the proceedings of 18th Sessions of the inquiry, his appointment as Inquiry Officer was cancelled. 4. Mr. Dev Patel, the learned advocate appearing appearing for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary inquiry is vitiated. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the order of the respondent-School Management dismissing the petitioner from service without appreciating the facts of the case. The report of the third Member of the Committee was not considered by the School Management as well as the Tribunal. The third Member of the Committee gave clean chit to the delinquent i.e. the petitioner. There were 15 charges levelled against the petitioner. The Charge No.16 was added by virtue of the order passed in the LPA No.103 of 2000 in the SCA No.5874 of 1999 15.6.2001 (page-94). The said charges were found to be serious by the learned Tribunal. The said charges were never forming part of the initial charge and the said charges were levelled only after the School Management found that the other charges would not be sufficient to fulfill the intention of knocking out the petitioner from the service. The charges which weighed with the Tribunal to be serious was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4.1 It was submitted that the Tribunal relied heavily on the report and the order of dismissal is passed. The charges which weighed with the Tribunal to be serious was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4.1 It was submitted that the Tribunal relied heavily on the report and the order of dismissal is passed. The respondent- School Management deliberately did not remain present before the DEO during the course of hearing on 8.10.2002 and even the DEO had declined for approval and kept for hearing on 19.10.2002 on the even date and on the said date also the representative of the School Management did not remain present and, therefore, the DEO continued the salary of the petitioner by way direct payment of salary scheme which itself shows that the DEO declined to grant approval to the respondent-School Management, however on 18.2.2003 the DEO passed a cryptic order of five lines according approval to the proposal dated 8.10.2002. 4.2 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Patel, the learned advocate submitted that the conduct of the School Management itself shows that the management acted in high-handed manner and not in the interest of education and students at large. 4.3 It was submitted that the petitioner’s representations were not considered by the respondent No.3 herein. The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal was not proper. The order of dismissing the petitioner from the service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, in light of the fact that out of 16 charges, Charge Nos.8, 9 and 10 are not proved against the petitioner. 4.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed and the judgment/order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Ms. Mamta Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the present petition is required to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner are of such grave nature which requires no interference from this Court and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Application No.123 of 2023 challenging the dismissal order dated 8.10.2002. 5.1 It was submitted that due to serious charges, petitioner was initially issued charge sheet on 03.03.1998 alleging 15 charges. Subsequently as per the judgment in LPA No.103 of 2000 dated 15.06.2001, charge No.15 was substituted and charge No.16 came to be added. 5.1 It was submitted that due to serious charges, petitioner was initially issued charge sheet on 03.03.1998 alleging 15 charges. Subsequently as per the judgment in LPA No.103 of 2000 dated 15.06.2001, charge No.15 was substituted and charge No.16 came to be added. 5.2 It was submitted that the Inquiry Committee comprising of 3 members have conducted the inquiry wherein petitioner was provided all the necessary documents, chance of cross examination of the witnesses produced the management, chance of presenting his case was properly given and after going through the documents, evidence led by the witnesses, out of 16 charges 13 charges were proved with the support of the documents and 3 charges were not proved. 5.3 It was submitted that on behalf of the management 8 witnesses were examined and petitioner was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. After following the principles of natural justice, the charges were of serious nature, the punishment of dismissal was proposed by the respondent No.2. Second show cause notice was issued as to why petitioner should not be dismissed from service and on considering the reply, management decided to terminate the services of petitioner. 5.4 It was submitted that the proposal was sent for the approval of DEO on 23.08.2002 which was received by the office of the DEO on the same date. The DEO has not rendered his decision in 45 days, therefore as per Section 36(6) of the Act, on the basis of deemed approval, management passed the order of dismissal on 08.10.2002. It was submitted that the DEO has after expiry of 45 days i.e. on 18.02.2003 passed an order stating that the approval to the proposal of the management is granted, but as per the Act this order which was passed after expiry of 45 days is required to be ignored and the Tribunal has also rightly noted the said fact in the said impugned order. 5.5 It was submitted that while passing the order the Tribunal has considered the inquiry record and after hearing all the parties dismissed both the applications. During the inquiry, since there was a constraint of 150 days and during this period when petition was filed which took time, as per Regulation-7, the Management requested the DEO for extending the time limit of 150 days which was granted by the respondent DEO and the inquiry was concluded within the extended time period. During the inquiry, since there was a constraint of 150 days and during this period when petition was filed which took time, as per Regulation-7, the Management requested the DEO for extending the time limit of 150 days which was granted by the respondent DEO and the inquiry was concluded within the extended time period. 5.6 It was submitted that being the Principal, the charges leveled against the petitioner were very serious in nature including the wrong admission, issuance of false LC, giving tuition to the students in breach of the rules and government policy and vulgar behavior with a married woman Smt. Alpaben Murawala and Smt. Jayshreeben N. Patel. All the witnesses including these two lady teachers deposed in the inquiry and after considering the evidences and record the charges came to be proved against the petitioner. 5.7 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.2 and the impugned judgment/order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Application No.388 of 1998 and Application No.123 of 2003 require no interference, the present petition be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge :- The petitioner herein was appointed as Head Master on 6.10.1995. The petitioner filed Application No.388 of 1998 on the ground that the petitioner was being illegally obstructed from attending his duties with effect from 15.12.1997 and the respondent School Management subjecting him to submit leave report and withholding salaries from June, 1998. 6.1 It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's family was receiving threats from the School Management and in view thereof the petitioner filed Criminal Case No.373 of 1998 on 25.3.1998 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The petitioner’s salary for June, 1998 were withheld. The Director, respondent No.1 of the School Shri Rajendra Patel filed complaint against the petitioner in Vejalpur Police Station on 28.5.1998. 7. In the aforesaid set of facts, (a) The petitioner was served with the show cause notice on 23.7.1998. (b) The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 5.8.1998. (c) Second show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 22.8.1998. (d) The petitioner replied the said show cause notice on 8.9.1998. 7. In the aforesaid set of facts, (a) The petitioner was served with the show cause notice on 23.7.1998. (b) The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 5.8.1998. (c) Second show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 22.8.1998. (d) The petitioner replied the said show cause notice on 8.9.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that, on one hand, the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties and on the other hand, the respondent-School Management initiated inquiry against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an Application No.388 of 1998 and interim relief came to be granted in terms of Para-8(3) restraining the School- Management from obstructing the petitioner. The aforesaid was replied to by the respondent School- Management as also the respondent No.3 – DEO. 7.1 By order dated 30.10.1998 the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 5.11.1998 and the said suspension was ratified by the respondent - DEO. 7.2 In continuation of above, the explanation rendered by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly the respondent-School Management constituted three members inquiry committee as required under the Regulations to probe the charges levelled against the petitioner. The School Management appointed Shri Rajendrabhai Patel, Director of the School as Presenting Officer. In the course of inquiry, it appears that the Presenting Member requested for changing the Inquiry Officer which was rejected by the D.E.O. The aforesaid was challenged by the respondent Management by preferring the Special Civil Application No.5874 of 1999 which came to be rejected by order dated 20.8.1999. The said order came to be assailed in L.P.A. No.130 of 2000, which came to be disposed of with consensus of the parties, substituting the Charge No.15 and the Charge No.16 was allowed to be added and it was further ordered that the inquiry be continued further by the same inquiry committee. As per the procedure prescribed for domestic inquiry under Rule 27, the proceedings were required to be completed within 150 days. In light of the fact that the said time line could not be adhered to, the D.E.O. was requested to extend the inquiry period which came to be extended accordingly by the respondent D.E.O considering the request to be genuine request. The Management examined about 9 witnesses in support of their case. In light of the fact that the said time line could not be adhered to, the D.E.O. was requested to extend the inquiry period which came to be extended accordingly by the respondent D.E.O considering the request to be genuine request. The Management examined about 9 witnesses in support of their case. 7.3 On 24.7.2002, a joint inquiry report was submitted by two inquiry officers i.e. representative from the panel of the Board and Management's representative recording that, out of 16 charges 13 were proved except charge No.8,9 and 10. The representative of the applicant also submitted his report on 26.7.2002 giving the delinquent employee clean chit. The Management appears to have resolved to accept the majority report and proceeded further in the matter. Accordingly second show cause notice came to be served to the petitioner on 1.8.2002 alongwith a Resolution date 29.7.2002 and inquiry reports, to which the petitioner herein tendered explanation on 13.8.2002. 7.4 On 21.8.2002, the Management resolved to dismiss the petitioner and a proposal dated 23.8.2002 was sent to the D.E.O. for approval. The D.E.O. did not accord approval within stipulated 45 days and on expiry of 45 days on the basis of Section 36 of the Act the respondent School-Management accorded deemed approval, wherein of order of dismissal came to be passed on 8.10.2002. 7.5 On 28.2.2003, the D.E.O. passed an order according approval to the proposal dated 18.2.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent School-Management has not passed any other order subsequent to the approval accorded by the respondent D.E.O. and in view thereof of the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of dismissal. 7.6 In the aforesaid set of facts, the Tribunal considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties, the documentary evidence produced on record and confirmed the order of dismissal passed in the inquiry proceedings. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.11.2006, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order read thus :- “10. From this observation of the High Court. it becomes clear that the very same inquiry committee which was in charge of the matter earlier was to proceed ahead. Accordingly, the very same inquiry committee continued the proceedings and submitted the report on the basis of which the impugned order is passed. From this observation of the High Court. it becomes clear that the very same inquiry committee which was in charge of the matter earlier was to proceed ahead. Accordingly, the very same inquiry committee continued the proceedings and submitted the report on the basis of which the impugned order is passed. After the arguments were over and the matter was reserved for orders, on 17.11.06 a 2-pages written submission was tendered on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the proceedings conducted by the inquiry committee after the conclusion of the litigation in the High Court was illegal because there was no order or resolution passed by the management again appointing Mr. Sudhirbai Shah as their representative because earlier by their resolution as recorded in the proceedings of 18th session of the inquiry his appointment as inquiry officer was cancelled. In view of the aforesaid clear observations of High Court this submission cannot be accepted. Moreover, once the inquiry Committee is constituted, its members cannot be removed by the management unilaterally without permission of the D.EO. In the instant case, the D.E.0. had never permitted or confirmed the management's action of removing Sudhirbbai Shah from the inquiry committee. This submission of the applicant though was objected by the management to be considered at this stage is considered and negatived accordingly. The delinquent employee is holding the sensitive post of H.M. in the school. There are l6 charges framed against him. The first charge is about long unauthorized absence causing adverse effect on the education. Charge no.2 to 7 and 13 are regarding serious acts of dereliction of duties as H.M. which has caused loss of the benefit of scholarship to the eligible students. Charge no.11 is about giving tuitions to the students in breach of the rules and govt. policy.. Charge no.16 is of serious nature which is about giving admissions to the students in Std.10 on the basis of lake and fabricated mark-sheets without properly verifying the authenticity and thereby showing connection with a scam of this nature. Charge no.14 is regarding not distributing the complimentary prizes sent by the colour companies for the students and the concerned teachers and retaining them for own use. Charge no.15 and 16 are of very serious nature, Charge no.15 is about indecent and vulgar behaviour with a married lady teacher Smt. Alpaben Murawala. Charge no.14 is regarding not distributing the complimentary prizes sent by the colour companies for the students and the concerned teachers and retaining them for own use. Charge no.15 and 16 are of very serious nature, Charge no.15 is about indecent and vulgar behaviour with a married lady teacher Smt. Alpaben Murawala. The applicant headmaster is alleged to have called the said lady teacher in his office in seclusion of others and made physical advances and amorous overtures. Charge no.16 is to the effect that when Smt. Jayshriben N. Patel was working as a teacher in the school the duplicate key of her locker used lo remain with the applicant H.M. Some objectionable articles like a packet of contraceptive tablets and a packet of condoms were found from the said locker. Despite the complaints made to the applicant, except changing the lock and handle of the locker no steps have been taken by him. From the gist of charges stated above, it would become clear that charge no.11,12, 15, and l6 are of very serious nature and that too for a responsible officer like the H.M. of the school. A perusal of the record shows at the school management has in the domestic inquiry examined the following persons as witnesses in support of these charges. (1) head-clerk Mr. Thaker K. (2) sr. clerk Mr. Harshadbhai Gujjar (3) primary teacher Mr. Mukesh S. Vaidya (4) Gurdian of a student Mr. Dilipibhai Mehta (5) Drawing (teacher Mr. Ikrambhai Malek (6) retired teacher Mr. R.R. Shah (7) Alpaben J. Murawala, teacher and (8) Teacher Jayshriben M. Patel. Keeping in view the legal position that in the matters of dismissal pursuant to the domestic inquiry, powers of the courts are limited and that of the judicial review and under those powers the court cannot reappreciate the evidence, I have perused the entire record of inquiry proceedings. I find that the joint findings recorded by two members inquiry committee are reasonable and 13 out of 16 charges including all the serious charges mentioned above were taken as proved on the basis of legal evidence. Mr. J.A Tivedi, L.A. for applicant has referring to the original record of inquiry proceedings made several submissions on the merits of the matter. As the said submissions and consideration of the said submissions, in my view, would amount to reappreciation of the evidence recorded in the domestic inquiry. Mr. J.A Tivedi, L.A. for applicant has referring to the original record of inquiry proceedings made several submissions on the merits of the matter. As the said submissions and consideration of the said submissions, in my view, would amount to reappreciation of the evidence recorded in the domestic inquiry. I am not dealing them because in my humble opinion, the same is not permissible. It is well-settled position of law that the technical rules of Evidence Act are not fully applicable to the inquiry proceedings. When two married lady teachers have deposed against the applicant in the domestic inquiry and one of them has clearly indicted the applicant about his indecent and vulgar behaviour, no more evidence is required. It is also noticed from the record of the inquiry proceedings that the delinquent employee was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and to the substantial extent he has availed the said opportunity and on some occasions where he found inconvenient he has avoided cross examination. On perusal of the record I find that the management has held the inquiry by observing principles of natural justice. It is argued that the order of dismissal dt. 8.10.02 was passed without obtaining the approval from the D.E.0. This submission also deserves to be negatived because from the reply filed by the D.E.0. and the original documents produced by the management, it appears that the proposal was sent by the management to D.E.0. on 23.8.02 which was received by his office vide inward no.9233 on the self-same date. Since the decision was not rendered within 45 days on the basis of deemed approval as permissible under the Act the management has passed the order of dismissal on 8.I0.02. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the applicant that the order was illegal on the ground of non-approval from the authorized officer. It seems that the D.E.0. has much after expiry of 45 days i.e. On 18.2.03 passed a cryptic order stating that the approval to the proposal of the management is granted. Needless to mention that this order which is passed after expiry of 45 days under the scheme of the "Act" is required to be ignored. It seems that the D.E.0. has much after expiry of 45 days i.e. On 18.2.03 passed a cryptic order stating that the approval to the proposal of the management is granted. Needless to mention that this order which is passed after expiry of 45 days under the scheme of the "Act" is required to be ignored. A submission is made on behalf of the applicant that charge no.3 and 14 were framed without there being any complaint from the concerned party and were taken as proved without examining the witness Shri Chintanbhai, On perusal of the record I find that this charge is proved on the basis of evidence of two witnesses. It is true that inquiry proceedings were prolonged much beyond 150 days but then it was due to the litigation before the High Court. Moreover, the D.E.O. has rightly extended the time limit. The submission about not giving the modified charge-sheet and there being no resolutions cte, have to be negatived being too technical in view of the clear cut observations of the Hon'ble High Court made in LP.A. no. 130/20. Non-passing of the resolution can at he best be termed as an irregularity but that cannot be the ground for quashing the proceedings as no prejudice is caused to the delinquent employee, Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble (Gujarat High (Court in the case of Dhanbhai Dungarbhai Pannar reported in 1972 CLR 497 it is submitted on behalf of applicant that the charge no.1 about absence cannot be taken as legally proved due to the delay. I accept the submission of management that in the instant case the said judgment would not apply because while the applicant was still remaining absent the management has initiated the inquiry proceedings by issuing the first show cause notice on 23.7.98 and there was no delay. A submission is made on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the presenting officer of the management has by expressing no faith in the Inquiry Officer pressurized him and obtained favourable report. It is difficult to accept this submission in the absence of the evidence. 11. A submission is made on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the presenting officer of the management has by expressing no faith in the Inquiry Officer pressurized him and obtained favourable report. It is difficult to accept this submission in the absence of the evidence. 11. Considering the complete facts of the natter I am of the view that the applicant has failed to establish that he was obstructed from attending to his duties and forced to submit the leave reports under duress and his salaries were illegally withheld from June 1998 to 5.11.98. I am also convinced that the school management has proved 13 out of 16 charges against the delinquent employee with the help or legal evidence by giving him full and reasonable opportunity of defending himself. As stated earlier. in the matters of judicial review. this forum cannot re-examine the evidence and give its independent findings as is done in the appellate jurisdiction. In my view. therefore, no interference with the inquiry proceedings and the dismissal order is called for. In view of these findings, Order 39 Rule 2(a) application filed by the applicant for breach of injunction is also required to be rejected. In the result, both these applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 9. This Court has also considered the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is apposite to refer to the said charges (true translation) :- “(1) Your have availed long leave without obtaining permission and, thereby, you have created adverse effect on the education work of the school. (2) By not intimating the concerned persons regarding the letters and circulars being received from the Department and, thereby, you have committed lapse in your duty as the Principal. (3) You could not make appropriate arrangement of the National Festivals being celebrated in the school and by retaining with you the audio cassette given in this connection by a student, you have indulged into indiscipline. (4) You have not regularly checked the logbook of the teachers and the class register and, thereby, you have committed severe negligence. (5) You have not regularly filled in the confidential reports of the teachers of the school. Not only that, but you have also committed disobedience towards the instructions given by the Director of Schools in this regard. (4) You have not regularly checked the logbook of the teachers and the class register and, thereby, you have committed severe negligence. (5) You have not regularly filled in the confidential reports of the teachers of the school. Not only that, but you have also committed disobedience towards the instructions given by the Director of Schools in this regard. (6) You have remained dormant and unsuccessful in making sure that the results of the examinations being conducted in the school turns out to be progressive day by day and you have not submitted any explanations in this regard even after calling for the same. (7) You have abstained from getting the Government scholarship receivable by the eligible students of the school and the students became victims of negligence on your part. (8) By writing anonymous letters for concealing or pampering your mistakes and for diverting the focus of the members of the governing body elsewhere, you have behaved in the manner which is unbecoming of a Principal. (9) Although being aware of the rules as a responsible Head of the school, you have kept the governing body of the school in dark for getting service in other school. (10) You have committed an unreasonable delay without any reason in getting the pension and other Government benefits to the retiring teachers of the school. (11) As per the Departmental Rules, you cannot indulge into giving private tuition. Even though, by giving private tuition to the students of the school, you have committed an act of indiscipline that may be termed to be of serious nature. (12) By not carrying out any sort of verification of the L.C. and Mark-sheets issued by the last school to the students getting admission to this school, you have shown negligence and irresponsible behaviour on your part and, thereby, you have indulged into a scandal by giving admissions on the basis of bogus L.C. and Mark-sheet. (13) By not putting your signature on the duplicate copy of the L.C. of the students who are going to other school from this school, you have revealed mala fide intention and lack of responsibility on your part. (14) You have caused gross injustice to the concerned persons by keeping the incentive prizes with you for your personal use, which were sent to the winners of contests sponsored by color companies and to the mentor teachers. (14) You have caused gross injustice to the concerned persons by keeping the incentive prizes with you for your personal use, which were sent to the winners of contests sponsored by color companies and to the mentor teachers. (15) With a mala fide intention; you used to ask Alpaben J. Muravala, the teacher of the primary section of the school, to come to you and have conversation with you on the pretext of giving advice for Hindi exam. You used to invite her to your home for tea. You asked her to see you near Nagari Hospital on the pretext of getting to know the result of “Kovid” exam. But, as you came to know that she had visited with her husband, your intention did not fulfill. But, thereafter, on 01/12/1997, you asked Mrs. Alpaben through a Peon to come to your office and taking advantage of her solitude, after praising her, pulled her hand and behaved indecently with her. Therefore, she pushed you and got out from there. Thus, by committing a criminal misconduct of outraging modesty of a female teacher with mala fide intention of satisfying your perverse mentality, you have committed a very serious misconduct of moral turpitude. (16) While you were serving as a Teacher at the school, the female teacher Jayshreeben N. Patel, after her appointment since 1986, used to receive vulgar letters. She had reported the same to the deceased Principal Shri Suryakantbhai. But, in the year 1997, when articles like packet of contraceptive pills and condom were found in her locker and you as the principal had a duplicate key of the same, she showed these articles to you as the Principal and to the staff members. Thus, despite having knowledge of the incident which can cause mental harassment to her, you neither took any action nor gave any clarification. Thus, seeing the indication of the present circumstances, by committing the above act of outraging the modesty of a female teacher and causing mental harassment to her and by misusing the duplicate key of her locker in your possession to do so, you have committed a misconduct of very serious nature.” 10. The Tribunal has considered the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, confirming the order of dismissal. The Tribunal has considered the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, confirming the order of dismissal. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, as referred above, having considered the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, the following emerge :- (a) The respondent No.2 School-Management conducted the inquiry by duly following the principles of natural justice. (b) The contention of the petitioner that the order of dismissal dated 8.10.2002 was passed without approval of the D.E.O. The said submission does not appeal to this Court and this Court concurs with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal that from the original documents produced by the School-Management, it appears that the proposal was sent by the School-Management to the respondent No.3 - D.E.O. on 23.8.2002 which was received by his office vide inward No.9233 on the same date. In absence of approval accorded by the respondent No.3 D.E.O. within a period of 45 days as provided under Section 36 of the Act, the respondent School- Management proceeded under Section 36(2) of the Act and considered the same as deemed approval as permissible under the Act and passed the order of dismissal on 8.11.2002. 11. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 36 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Act and Rules, 1972 which reads thus :- “SECTION 36 : Dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of certain persons (1) No person who is appointed as a headmaster, a teacher or a member of non-teaching staff of a registered private secondary school shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated by the manager until- (a) he has been given by the manager a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, and (b) the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, has been approved in writing by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Board: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any person who is appointed for a temporary period only. (2) The officer referred to in clause (b), of sub-section (1) shall communicate his decision within a period of forty-five days, from the date of receipt by him of the proposal under the said clause (b) and if such decision is not communicated to the manager by the said officer within such period the action proposed to be taken under the said clause (b) shall be deemed to have been approved by the said officer. (3) Where a head master, a teacher or a member of non-teaching staff of a registered private secondary school is suspended by the manager of the school pending any inquiry proposed to be held against him, the fact of such suspension together with the grounds therefor, shall be immediately communicated by the manager to an officer authorised in this behalf by the Board, and such suspension shall be subject to ratification by the said officer within a period of forty-five days from the date of the receipt of the communication in this behalf by such officer and if such ratification is not communicated to the manager by the said officer within such period, the suspension under reference shall cease to have effect on the expiry of such period. (4) Where a head master, a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff of a registered private secondary school desires to submit his resignation, the resignation shall be tendered by him in person to the District Education Officer concerned and shall not be accepted by the manager unless it is so tendered and forwarded to him by such officer duly endorsed. The acceptance of any such resignation tendered in contravention of this sub-section shall be ineffective. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the authorised officer under clause (b) of sub-section (1) may make an appeal to 9 "the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal constituted under section 3 of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006 within a period of thirty days from the date of the decision of the authorised officer. 12. Further in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner was holding a sensitive post of Head Master in the school. There were 16 charges framed against the petitioner ; The first charge is about long unauthorised absence causing adverse effect on education. 12. Further in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner was holding a sensitive post of Head Master in the school. There were 16 charges framed against the petitioner ; The first charge is about long unauthorised absence causing adverse effect on education. Charges Nos.2 to 7 and 13 are regarding serious acts of dereliction of duties as Head Master which resulted in the loss of scholarship to eligible students. Charge No.11 is about giving tuition to the students in breach of Rules of Government Policy. Charge No.16 is of serious nature which is with respect to giving admission to the students in Standard 10th on the basis of fake and fabricated mark-sheet without properly verifying authenticity which resultantly can be said to be a scam. Charge No.14 is regarding not distributing the complementary prizes sent by the Colour Company for the students and the concerned teachers and retaining them for personal use. Charge Nos.15 and 16 are also very grave in nature. Charge No.15 is about indecent and vulgar behaviour with a married lady teacher Smt. Alpaben Murawala. The allegation on the applicant to have called the lady teacher in his office seclusion of others and made physical advances and amorous overtures. Charge No.16 is to the effect that when Smt. Jayshreeben N. Patel was imparting duties as a teacher in the school, the duplicate key of her locker used to remain with the petitioner. Some objectionable articles like a packet of contraceptive tablets and a packet of condoms were found from the said locker. Except changing of the lock and handle of the locker, no steps were taken by the petitioner inspite of the complaint to the aforesaid effect. The aforesaid charges stand proved and the same are also grave and of serious nature. In the inquiry held by the School-Management in support of the aforesaid charges, (1) head-clerk Mr. Thaker K. (2) Sr. clerk Mr. Harshadbhai Gujjar (3) primary teacher - Mr. Mukesh S. Vaidya (4) Gurdian of a student Mr. Dilipibhai Mehta (5) Drawing teacher Mr. Ikrambhai Malek (6) retired teacher Mr. R.R. Shah (7) Alpaben J. Murawala, teacher and (8) Teacher Jayshriben M. Patel were examined by the School-Management. 13. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ex. Ikrambhai Malek (6) retired teacher Mr. R.R. Shah (7) Alpaben J. Murawala, teacher and (8) Teacher Jayshriben M. Patel were examined by the School-Management. 13. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 373 , wherein paragraphs 22 to 27 read thus :- “22. The nature of allegations against the respondent are indeed grave in nature as the respondent not only threatened the Doctor complainant but has misbehaved and abused and injured him and made false allegations against him of sexual harassment to his wife. Such a nature of misconduct which has been committed by the respondent once stand proved is unpardonable and if the authority has considered it appropriate to punish him with penalty of removal from service by an Order dated 14th July 2004 and confirmed by the appellate/revisional authority and by the High Court in the impugned judgment leaves no sympathy for retention in service and that too in a discipline force like CRPF. 23. The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons. 25. The principles have been culled out by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others wherein it was observed as under: "18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being factfinding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/ Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 26. It has been further examined by this Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another vs. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 as under: "19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the codelinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the codelinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the codelinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of chargesheet in the two cases. If the codelinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable." 27. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the High Court, in our considered view, fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed by the departmental authorities for his proven misconduct. The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of the authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law.” 14. In the facts of the present case and the aforesaid ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal requires no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the present case and the aforesaid ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal requires no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On perusal of the record, the aforesaid findings are arrived at by the disciplinary authority having arrived at the same by full-fledged inquiry and following the cardinal principles of natural justice wherein 13 charges out of 16 are proved against the petitioner. 15. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for in the order of dismissal dated 8.10.2002 passed by the respondent School-Management and the impugned CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly the present petition fails and the same stands dismissed.