H.N. SARMA, J.

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. J. Hussain. learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) The petitioner, during the relevant time was serving as Junior Teacher in the Ram Krishna Mission School, Along in the West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The School authority alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner demoted him to the rank of Assistant Teacher by holding a departmental proceeding, which is the subject matter of challenge of this writ petition.

(3.) At the out set, a preliminary point has been raised by Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 about the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel, the R.K. Mission School, not being a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ lies against the said school. It is further submitted that the R.K. Mission School is neither a statutory body nor the State has got any pervasive control over the Mission in the matter of its management and it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. However, the impugned decision is an administrative one taken by the Management of the Mission for internal discipline amongst the teachers of the School, this petition is not maintainable.

(4.) Refuting the aforesaid submissions of the respondents, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although R.K. Mission is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, it has all the criteria of a State and at any rate it will fall under the category of other authorities as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that R.K. Mission receipt of regular grant in aid from the Government by way of salary of the teachers and in its Governing Body, the representative of the Government is also there. However, the school is recognized by the Government and the Government has supervisory control over the education function rendered by the School. On such considerations, it is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that this writ petition is maintainable. Highlighting his submissions Mr. Tiwari has submitted that, regarding receipt of grant by the R.K. Mission from the Government is very well established from the minutes of the meeting held in the Office Chamber of the Minister Education, Science and Technology on 05.02.96, where in the said meeting was conducted under the Chairmanship of Minister of Education and Secretary as well as the Director of the Education Department were also present. In the said meeting and on perusal of the minutes of the said meeting as annexed as Annexure-P/10, in the affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the School authority is getting regular grant from the Government. In the said meeting certain other vital points regarding funding of the school, en hancement of the grant from 18% to 25-30%, enhancement of annual contribution towards food of the hostel students of School, assurance of the Government to extend financial aid on pay and allowances of teachers and non teaching staff as per norms applicable to Govt. Schools, decision to provide extra lump sum 10% grant and other vital points regarding funding of the School was discussed, and certain vital decisions were taken pertaining to the management of the School. In terms of the aforesaid decision, the Secretary of Education Department, vide letter dated 25.03.96 forwarded a revised norm for submission of proposal for grant-in-aid to the Secretary of the Mission. That apart, the R.K. Mission is also getting grants from the Central Government and a letter from the Ministry of Welfare, Govt. of India, dated 29.12.97, annexed as Annexure-P/12, disclosed that the Govt. of India sanctioned a sum of Rs. 15,49,720/- as the first installment for R.K. Mission as per on going schemes. In the letter, at Para1 l. it is provided that the Indian Audit Department has the right to excess to the books and accounts of the Mission for necessary inspection. It is also submitted that the R.K. Mission School is imparting education to the students of the State and education is being a State subject, the Mission is rendering the function of the State to that extent. The Governing Body of the School, who takes vital decisions regarding the Management of the School also, has the Government Officials as members, who take part in such decision in the matter of management of School. On over-all consideration of the matter, as submitted by Mr. Tiwari, the R.K. Mission school falls within the category of other authorities within the Article 12 of the Constitution of India if at all. It cannot be characterized as a State. In support of his arguments Mr. Tiwari has cited the following decisions reported in 2000 (3) GLT 441 : P. Chakraborty Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 117 [LQ/GauHC/1998/264] : N. J. Kr. Singh Vs. State of Manipur, 2001 (2) GLT 361 [LQ/GauHC/2001/259] , 2000 (J) GLT 470 : P. N. Pandey and Ors. Vs. Union of India., 2004(1) GLT 228 : R.B. Devi Vs. Multipurpose Progressive Association and ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649 [LQ/SC/2005/123] : Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111 [LQ/SC/2002/499] : P. K. Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology., 1984 SC 1621 [LQ/SC/1984/197] : Tikaram Vs. M. S. P. Mandal.. AIR 1990SC423 : Francis John Vs. Director ofEdu., 1997 (3) GLT 133 : Mool Chand and Co. and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. and (1993) 1 SCC 645 [LQ/SC/1993/103] . Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents has also cited the following decisions in support of his arguments: (2002) 5 SCC 111 [LQ/SC/2002/499] : Pradeep Kr. Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and (1989) 2 SCC 691 [LQ/SC/1989/256] : Andi Mukta Sadguru SMVSSJMS Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani.

(5.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid point. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, the points for consideration in the light of the aforesaid submissions is whether the R.K. Mission school is a State or other authorities, as mentioned in the Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to be amenable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In the case reported in 2000 (3) GLT 441 (Parimal Chakraborty Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors.), dealing with the matter, whether a teacher of a private college receiving grants-in-aid from the State is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction for reinstatement to the post of Principal held with private educational institution, which is discharging the function of the State is rendering public duty and writ would lie against the institution. Referring to the cases reported in (1993) J SCC 645, AIR 1998 SC 295 [LQ/SC/1997/345] : K. Krishnamach aryulu Vs. S. V. H. College of Engineering., AIR 1998 PandH 1 (FB) : Ravneet Kaur Vs. Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, AIR 1981 SC 487 [LQ/SC/1980/459] : (1981) 3 SCC 722, A. Hasia V. K. Mujib. AIR 2000 SCW 153 : Chandigarh Administration and Ors. Vs. R. Vali and Ors., in the aforesaid decision the High Court held at para 12 and 14 as follows:

"12. The teachers of educational institutions established under statutory provisions or under the control of State are entitled to vindicate their grievances availing remedies under the Article 226; therefore, there must exist justifiable reasons for refusal of the same to the teachers of private institutions. Non-availability of any legislative shield cannot be criterion for such refusal. It is for this reason the Supreme Court in K. Knshnamacharyulu and others (supra) while giving effect to an executive order held that the writ is maintainable. Tins decision of the Supreme Court has to be read in a larger amplitude. 14. To conclude, it may be stated that classification is permissible when two conditions are satisfied, that is - (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons, or things that are grouped together from others and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the instant case, the teachers of the private institutions receiving grant from the State and affiliated to the University are discharging the same duties as that of the teachers of Govt. institutions or of the institutions which were created under the statute; and they all are discharging public duty in aid of constitutional mandate. Merely because they are not employees of the State Govt. or of the institutions created under the statute, it would be an impermissible classification to place them as a different group to deny them the remedies under Article 226 for preservation and protection of their service rights and thus would be subject to judicial review. Even otherwise it is subjected to certain restrictions as regards its right to spend its money out of the profit earned. (See T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and Islamic: Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.)."

(6.) The undisputed facts, as stated herein above is that the R.K. Mission School is not a statutory body as it has not been framed under any Statute, rather it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act., 1860 and R.K. Mission, Along is a Branch of R.K. Mission and it is established with a view to impart quality education in the State. Thus, providing education is its sole moto.

(7.) The ratio of the cases referred to above., disclose that imparting education is a State: function having public element in it. That apart, the school is receiving sizeable financial grants. from the State Government and even the salary of the teachers are also being paid by the State. The Central Government fund is also offering to the school and the Audit Department of the Govt. of India has the authority to inspect the accounts of the R.K. Mission, so far it relates to the grant provided by the Central Government.

(8.) Applying the ratio of the cases, referred to above in the facts of the present case, I hold that the R.K. Mission falls within the category of other authorities under Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thus the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Hussain is overruled.

(9.) So far it relates to the merit of the case, it has been submitted by Mr. Tiwari that although the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of demotion to the Rank of Assistant Teacher from Junior Teacher by holding a departmental inquiry on the ground of commission of misconduct, in fact there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the alleged overt act on the part of the petitioner cannot be attributed to as misconduct. The allegations against the petitioner is that he gave a counter note in the notice by which the secretary of the School asked to meet all the regular teachers of the School on 17.05.03 at 3 P.M. served by putting a note there in that, there is no agenda, which goes to show that, he has virtually challenged the authority of the Secretary. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice vide No. RKM/ALG/C-S.25/S-023, dated 21.05.03. The petitioner in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, replied that the allegation of misconduct which had been brought against him is misconceived, and by virtue of such reply, the petitioner in fact has not stated anything whether he committed the alleged act or not, and by non-denial of the specific charge, made against him it might be treated as an admission on the part of the petitioner.

(10.) The word "misconduct" has been defined under Clause 31 of the relevant Service Rules of the School. The said definition of misconduct under Clause 31 is an inclusive one and not exhaustive. On perusal of the instances of misconduct as provided in Clause 31 and over all consideration of the matter, I do not consider that the act of omission and commission attributed to the petitioner falls within the category of misconduct. The petitioner is serving as teacher in a school run and manage by an organization which is known for its discipline and principles. In fact strict discipline of the R.K. Mission Schools is its basic ideal and all concerned in the organization more particularly the teacher, who act as guiding personalities for the students are expected to follow strict discipline in all matters, otherwise the very basic characteristics of the organization may be jeopardized by such internal indiscipline. The petitioner did not reply to show cause notice, in respect of which the authority conducted the inquiry in terms of its rules. The rule of a particular organizati on of Department which is in force is only applicable in the matter of such disciplinary proceeding in respect of a organization or such department.

(11.) Benefits of observations or findings on the basis of interpretation of other rules, will not be available to the petitioner and it is the own rule of R.K. Mission School that will be applicable in the instant case. Following such rules, as applicable to the petitioner, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment and I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the process of inflicting the punishment. No violation of the provisions of any of the pro vision of the Rules or Natural Justice could also been shown in the instant case. As such the scope of judicial review in such matter is that limited. Regarding limits ofjudicial review visa-vis the powers of the High Court under Article 226 exercising writ jurisdiction, we may recall the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2003) 3 SCC583 (Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and Ors.) As para 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court held asfollows:

"17. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits ofjudicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority."

(12.) Although Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel tried to impress upon me that there is no adequate and reliable evidence or materials on record justifying the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, there is little scope for the writ court to consider and reassess the materials on record in such cases.

(13.) It is not the function of the writ court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings. Nor the adequacy or reliabdlity of the evidence is a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the writ court. This view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the Case ofR.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 90 [LQ/SC/1999/838] .

(14.) Although, the petitioner also faintly raised a grievance regarding non supply of the enquiry report, the petitioner could not show any prejudice caused to him thereby. Mere technical violation of this procedure will not hold good provided the petitioner cannot show and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that substantial prejudice was caused to him thereby and the petitioner not being able to satisfy on this count, the contention cannot be upheld. In fact, in the instant case the petitioner not denying the charge of misconduct in his written statement virtually admitted the same.

(15.) In view of the above, discussion, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of the power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(16.) In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed, making no order as to costs.