JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. The appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is running a College known as S.M.D.R.S.D. College, Pathankot. The respondent had been in the employment of the appellant as Principal of the College since 1977. Certain allegations of misconduct were levelled against him. He was served with a charge sheet and ultimately a regular enquiry was conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the appellant on July 7, 1984. The matter was considered by the Managing Committee of the appellant society. The Committee decided to issue a notice to the respondent informing him that It was provisionally of the opinion that a penalty of removal from service be imposed upon him. The respondent submitted his reply to the said notice dated September 6, 1984. The appellant in the meantime requested the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab to grant approval to the proposal “of imposing penalty of removal from service. The Director, however, by order dated May 14, 1985, exercising his power under Section 4 of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 2974 (for short the Act) refused to grant the requisite approval. As a result of this refusal, it was held that the respondent shall be deemed to have continued in service of the College and was entitled to full pay, allowances and other benefits. The Society preferred an appeal to the College Tribunal constituted under Section 17-A of the Act which was dismissed by order dated December 26, 1985. It was in these circumstances that Civil Writ Petition 48 of 1986 was filed in this Court by the appellant-Society for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated May 14, 1985 and December 26 1985 passed by the Director Public Instructions “(Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh declining to grant approval of the proposed penalty and the College Tribunal dismissing the appeal, respectively. A further prayer was also made of striking down the provisions of Sections 4, 2-A and 2-B of the Act being ultra vires of the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
2. Respondent herein also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3936 of 1986 for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the resolution of the Managing Committee directing him to represent against the proposed action of penalty of removal from service; the inquiry proceedings and treating him as a Principal of the College with all consequential benefits including back wages.
3. These writ petitions were partly allowed by D. V. Sehgal, J. (as his Lordship then was) by a common judgment rendered in C.W.P. 48 of 1987. It was held therein that orders dated May 14, 1985′ and December 26, 1985 passed by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab and the College Tribunal respectively, were without jurisdiction. Letters dated September 6, 1984 and September 10, 1984 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) respectively attached with C.W.P.3936 of 1987) conveying the decision of of the Managing Committee to the respondent that it was provisionally of the opinion that a penalty of removal from service be imposed upon him were also quashed. The provisions of Section 4 of the Act were found to be violative of the protection guaranteed to religious or linguistic minority educational institute by observing that the same were ultra vires Articles 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab being an authority outside the management of the appellant had no jurisdiction to approve or refuse to accord approval to dismissal or removal of any of its employees. The learned Single Judge also found that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules) were regulatory measures and provided protection to the employees against any arbitrary action and, therefore, in no way infringed Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It was further found that the inquiry proceedings against the respondent were elearly violative of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 3, inasmuch as no opportunity as contemplated by the said sub-rule had been provided to the respondent. It was thus concluded that the report of the Inquiry Officer as also notice proposing penalty of removal from service stood vitiated. Lastly it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the management was left with the choice either to proceed with the inquiry proceedings in accordance with law or to treat the respondent as having retired from service with effect from September 30, 1986 afternoon by giving him emoluments and retiral benefits.
4. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated February 23, 1987 the Managing Committee of the College and the Principal-respondent have filed two separate letters Patent Appeals being 237 and 290 of 1987 respectively, challenging the different observations non-suiting to them.
5. Letters Patent Appeal 212 of 1987 has been filed by the State of Punjab, the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab and the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Punjab against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge challenging, a part thereof whereby it was held that provisions of Section 4 of the Act were hit by the protection guaranteed to religious or linguistic minority educational institution as contained in Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
6. After the admission of the appeal, the Principal applied for review of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The review application was allowed and the judgment was modified by order dated September 23, 1987. It was held that since the Principal had attained the age of Superannuation and automatically retired from service on September 30, 1986, he could no longer be treated in service and the only course left open to the Society is to pay him the emoluments including retiral benefits and consider him as having retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It was directed that the emoluments and retirement benefits be paid on or before November 30, 1987.
The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the writ petition against the Society was not maintainable. There is no merit in the contention. The Society is running a College and employing a large number of teachers. The service conditions of the teachers are governed by the Rules ibid. Any action of the management in terminating the Services of its teachers in violation of the Rules which provide security to the teachers working in the privately managed schools will certainly give a cause of action to them and the writ petition challenging such action will be competent.
7. The learned counsel further urged that the Society being a religious or linguistic minority educational Society was not bound to follow the procedure as laid down in Rule 3 of the Rules ibid for taking disciplinary proceedings against its teachers. There is again no force in this contention. Rule 3 of the Rules ibid contains the procedure for imposing penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The procedure prescribed by the said Rule is nothing but the compliance of the principles of natural justice. In the matter of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank the minimum requirement is that the principles of natural justice be adhered to before taking such action. The society is receiving grant from the Government and Rule 3 is only a protection provided to the teachers working in-the College against any arbitrary action. The rule thus cannot be said to be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, The Society is bound to follow the procedure as contained in Rule 3 while taking action against its teachers.
8. The learned counsel appearing, for the State of Punjab and the Principal in the connected appeals, argued that the view of the learned Single Judge holding Section 4 to be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India was not correct. The question in the facts of this case is only academic and is left open to be agitated in an appropriate proceedings. The observations of the learned Single Judge made in that behalf will not bind the parties to this litigation and shall not be taken as an expression of opinion in that behalf.
9. In view of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.