Judgment :- 1. I do not think R.67 (4) of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules is ultra vires S.12 (2) of the Kerala Education Act whatever one might think of the wisdom or practicability of a rule contemplating a formal inquiry by a departmental officer into the grounds for the suspension, in other words into the charges against the alleged delinquent, in the same manner as for imposing a penalty on the charges, for the purpose of deciding whether a suspension pending inquiry ordered by the manager (the duration of which suspension is, in any event, limited to 15 days) was proper or not. (Ordinarily the 15 days would have expired even before the departmental officer proceeded to hold the inquiry, & I should have thought that in no case could the inquiry be completed within the 15 days if the procedure in R.76 (2) & (3) were to be followed. And this inquiry to be followed by another formal inquiry into the charge under R.76(1). For, I do not read S.12 (2) as giving a manager a power of suspension up to 15 days. What it does is to deny him any power to suspend for more than 15 days without previous sanction, and a rule which says that even suspension for a period not exceeding 15 days is subject to regulation by departmental officers is by no means inconsistent with the section. It is a cumulative provision, well within the rule making power given by S.36. And, as for the allegation that before making the impugned order, Ex. P6, the Deputy Director did not hold an inquiry as required by R.67 (4), the order shows that he did hold such an inquiry obtaining statements from the accused headmaster, and that the petitioner manager, who declined to participate, adduced no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge on which he had thought fit to suspend the headmaster. I dismiss the petition. Dismissed.