ORDER : Ninala Jayasurya, J. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.07.2023 in W.P.No.35773 of 2022. 2. The respondent No.1 herein aggrieved by the action of the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’) in the writ petition sought a declaration that the proceedings dated 01.09.2022 dismissing him from the respondent-College and not reinstating him into service pursuant to the directions of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, dated 20.09.2022 and 24.09.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Telugu) against an aided post and has put in twenty two years of service. On the allegation that he made some objectionable statements defaming the college on social media, a Memo dated 07.10.2020 was issued and being not satisfied with the explanation, the college, on 19.11.2020 issued a Show Cause Notice and after submission of explanation dated 23.11.2020, placed the petitioner under suspension vide Order dated 26.11.2020. Thereafter, the college issued a Charge Memo dated 15.01.2021 to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 20.03.2021 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. However, the request of the college seeking permission for termination of the petitioner was not acceded to by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, and vide Proceedings dated 21.03.2022, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education was instructed to issue directions to the college to conduct fresh enquiry by appointing another Enquiry Officer of higher rank to that of Lecturer cadre. Subsequently, the college issued another Charge Sheet-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2022 to the petitioner and after submission of Explanation dated 21.05.2022, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report dated 08.08.2022 opining that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner submitted detailed Explanation dated 22.08.2022, but the college, based on the enquiry report, passed the Order dated 01.09.2022 dismissing the petitioner from service. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, apart from other contentions, it was argued that the said dismissal order dated 01.09.2022 is contrary to Section 79 (1) of the A.P.Education Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, apart from other contentions, it was argued that the said dismissal order dated 01.09.2022 is contrary to Section 79 (1) of the A.P.Education Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the same is liable to be set aside. The college filed a counter-affidavit raising a plea about the maintainability of the writ petition and sought to support it’s action in dismissing the petitioner from service. 5. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the contention with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, set aside the order of the college dated 01.09.2022 opining that the same has been passed without obtaining permission of the competent authority as contemplated under first proviso to Section 79 of the Act. The learned Judge also directed the college to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits while allowing the writ petition. 6. Heard Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-College and Mr.M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner. 7. Learned Senior Counsel inter alia contended that the college after duly conducting an enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner by affording reasonable opportunity, passed the order of dismissal, in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. He submits that the management of the college is having competence and power not only to initiate disciplinary proceedings, but also to take suitable action, if the allegations / irregularities are proved in the enquiry. He submits that in the present case, as there is due compliance with the principles of natural justice, the action of the college cannot be found fault with, but the learned Judge only on the premise that prior approval of the competent authority was not obtained before issuing order of dismissal, set aside the same and the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case is not tenable. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the college to take appropriate action against the employee / writ petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Making the said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. Making the said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner, on the other hand, made submissions to the effect that it is the third round of litigation and the appellant-Management only with a prejudicial attitude, had resorted to take action and as such it was not approved by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the appellant is not justified in conducting repeated enquiries and subjecting the respondent / writ petitioner to hardship. It is his contention that the learned Single Judge, after due satisfaction that the order under challenge is contrary to law had rightly not granted any further directions and if the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to remand is accepted, the management would fill up the lacuna. He also contends that if the matter is remanded to the management, the respondent / writ petitioner would be subjected to further victimization. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 10. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the Order under challenge warrants interference by this Court in the present intra-court appeal? 11. As noted earlier, the main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-College is to the effect that the order of dismissal was passed by adhering to the principles of natural justice and, the learned Single Judge went wrong in setting aside the same only on the premise that prior approval of the competent authority was not obtained. Chapter XIV of the Act deals with Payment of salaries and allowances to and disciplinary action against employees of private institutions . Section 79 of the Act, which is relevant to the case on hand is reproduced hereunder. Section 79 : Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc., of employee of private institutions. 1.No teacher or member of the non teaching staff employed in any private institution (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the employee). Section 79 of the Act, which is relevant to the case on hand is reproduced hereunder. Section 79 : Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc., of employee of private institutions. 1.No teacher or member of the non teaching staff employed in any private institution (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the employee). She shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: [Provided that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed under the sub-section against an employee other than an employee of a minority educational institution without the prior approval of such authority or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions; Provided further that the management may prefer an appeal against any order of the officer or authority refusing approval under this sub-section to such authority or officer and within such period as may be prescribed.] (2) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee. 3(a)……….. (b)…………. 4……………… 5………………….. 12. A bare reading of the statutory provision, more particularly, the first proviso, makes it clear that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed against an employee of a private educational institution without the prior approval of the authority or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education is the competent authority and no prior permission before issuing order of dismissal was obtained as per the mandate of the Act. When the Act contemplates a particular thing to be done, it has to be complied with. The proviso extracted above is rather a condition or restriction which operates as a check on the actions of the management and safeguards the interest of the employees in private educational institutions, if their services are sought to be dispensed in an arbitrary manner. 14. In the present case, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-College has not obtained the permission of the competent authority before dismissing the respondent / writ petitioner from the college. 14. In the present case, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-College has not obtained the permission of the competent authority before dismissing the respondent / writ petitioner from the college. As there is non-compliance with the statutory requirement, the learned Single Judge has rightly, in the considered opinion of this Court, had set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and the consequential directions for reinstatement of the respondent / writ petitioner are just and sustainable. The appellant-Educational institution is expected to be aware of the provisions of the statute, more particularly those dealing with the punitive powers and strictly adhere to the same. Any infraction, like in the present case, vitiates the proceedings of dismissal, removal etc; Therefore, this Court see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the point is answered. 15. While it is open to the appellant-College to act, in accordance with the statutory provisions, any steps in that direction, may not amount to filling up the lacuna. Suffice to state that any action of the institution shall not only be in strict compliance with the Act, but also principles of natural justice. 16. In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.