ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning termination of Petitioner by Respondent No.3 vide Order dated 31.05.2023 without complying with Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows; The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of MBA in Aditya Institute of Technology & Management, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. After due process of selection, an appointment order was issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.AITAM/Estt., Technology/2009-10, dated 06.05.2010. The Petitioner was being paid consolidated pay of Rs.15,000/- per month contrary to the scale fixed for the post of Assistant Professor. In spite of the same, the Petitioner was regularly attending the work and was also awarded Ph. D., in the year 2021. 3. While so, Respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice on 06.04.2023 calling for explanation as to why the services of the Petitioner should not be terminated. The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show-cause on 21.04.2023 and additional explanation on 14.05.2023 denying the allegations made in the show- cause notice. However, Respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry terminated the services of the Petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.05.2023 on the ground that the explanation offered by the Petitioner was not satisfactory. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Though notice was served to Respondent No.3, no Counter Affidavit was filed. 5. Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is in violation of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 as no prior approval was sought from the competent authority before issuing the impugned order. It is further contended that even otherwise, the impugned order of termination only on the ground that the explanation offered by the Petitioner is not satisfactory, cannot be sustained in the absence of full-fledged enquiry. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that no reasons have been furnished by Respondent No.3 in the impugned order. 6. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order can be sustained without compliance of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982? 7. Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 provides for the manner in which a teaching or non-teaching employee in any private institution can be imposed a major penalty. 6. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order can be sustained without compliance of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982? 7. Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 provides for the manner in which a teaching or non-teaching employee in any private institution can be imposed a major penalty. Section 79 of the Act reads as under; “79. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc., of employees 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') 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 this 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] [Substituted by Act No. 27 of 1987, w.e.f. 1-6-1987.]. (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) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, such employee shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee. (4) Every such employee as is placed under suspension under sub-section (3) shall be paid subsistence allowance at such rates as may be prescribed during the period of his suspension. (5) Before imposing any penalty, other than the penalties specified in subsection (1), an employee shall be informed in writing of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and be given an opportunity of making a representation, but it shall not be necessary to hold an oral inquiry into such allegations.” 8. The first proviso to section 79 makes it apparent that approval of competent authority is an absolute requirement before imposing any penalty of any member of teaching or non-teaching staff of the educational institution. Apart from that, Section 79 (2) contemplates enquiry to be conducted when major penalties specified in Section 79(1) are proposed to be imposed. In the present case, neither approval from the competent authority was sought nor any enquiry as contemplated under Section 79(2) of the Act was conducted barring a show-cause notice. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Vasavi College of Engineering vs. A. Suryanarayana & Others , 1991 (3) ALT 335 (D.B) held that the Writ Petition can be maintained against the managements of private educational institutions, which are recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, irrespective of whether they are aided or not. The Division Bench of this Court after referring to Section 79 of the Act held that the compliance of the same is absolute and non-compliance can be questioned in the Writ Petition. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court was followed by this Court in S. Triveni vs. Andhra Mahila Sabha and others , 2006 (1) ALD 149 and V.D.M.L. Kalyani vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh , 2012 (6) ALD 292 10. In the present case, a show-cause notice dated 06.04.2023 was issued raising a number of allegations against the Petitioner and the said allegations were not backed-up by any oral or documentary evidence. Even though the Petitioner had given a detailed explanation,Respondent No.3 did not choose to conduct any enquiry as is required under Section 79 of the Act and straight away passed the impugned order. 11. Even though the Petitioner had given a detailed explanation,Respondent No.3 did not choose to conduct any enquiry as is required under Section 79 of the Act and straight away passed the impugned order. 11. The impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is in gross violation of Section 79 of the Act as no prior approval was sought from competent authority nor any enquiry was conducted by Respondent No.3 before passing the impugned order. As the impugned order is in gross violation of Section 79 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to be re-instated into service with full salary from the date of impugned order. 12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions; (i) The impugned order is set-aside; (ii) The Petitioner shall be re-instated into service by Respondent No.3 and shall be paid full salary from the date of impugned order till the date of reinstatement into the service; (iii) Respondent No.3 shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the Petitioner towards costs. 13. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.