ORDER
Dattu, J.
1. Since common question of fact and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order.
2. The employee as well as the Educational Institution are before this Court in these two Writ Petitions, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Tumkur, in MA.(EAT) No. 1/90 dated 27.9.1994 and 21.3.1998 respectively.
3. In Writ petition No. 42940/1999, filed by the management/ employer, they call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal modifying the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the educational institution.
4. In Writ Petition No. 6720/2000, the employee of the educational institution calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in partly allowing the appeal filed by him.
5. Facts in detail need not be noticed by me. It is suffice to state that, petitioner in Writ Petition 6720/2000 was working as a Workshop Superintendent in the institution managed and controlled by the respondent society. For the alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner while he was in its service, the disciplinary authority of the respondent institution had dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee has filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 8(1) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institution (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short)
6. Contesting respondents had filed their objections denying the assertions and allegations made in the memorandum of appeal. Basing on the pleading, the Tribunal had framed the preliminary issue with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held by the respondent management. The Tribunal by its detailed order dated 27.9.1994 has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the employer is not fair and proper and therefore, directs the employer to lead its evidence, if any in support of its impugned order. But while saying so, the Tribunal very curiously has set aside the order passed by the respondent management in dismissing the petitioner from service. The order made by the Tribunal on the preliminary issue as under:
'The impugned order passed by the respondents on the basis of the domestic enquiry held without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant is hereby set aside and the parties are directed to lead evidence.'
7. On the same day, the Tribunal frames the following issues for its consideration and decision. They are:
'I. Whether the respondents prove that the domestic enquiry held by it against the appellant is in accordance with law and the same is sufficient by itself to pass the impugned order?
II. Whether the appellant proves that he has not committed any of the charges leveled against him and the enquiry held against him is vitiated?
III. What order?'
8. Even while framing the issues, in my opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error and mistake. They are, firstly, having held that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent institution is not fair and proper, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to have framed once again the first issue for its consideration and decision. Nextly, in Service Law Jurisprudence, it is unheard of an issue being framed, casting onus on the delinquent employee to prove that he is innocent and has not committed certain acts of misconduct alleged against him by the management. The tribunal considers these wrong issues and comes to the conclusion that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service by the respondent management is wholly arbitrary and illegal and therefore, modifies the order made by the disciplinary authority. The same reads as under:-
'