Judgment :- 1. The Manager of K.P.R.P. High School at Kongad is the petitioner. 2. Respondents 2 to 8 were teachers in that school. On the basis of certain allegations of misconduct on their part they were suspended by the petitioner on 29-3-1961. The order of suspension of the fifth respondent was cancelled and and he was subsequently reinstated in service. Respondents 3, 4 and 8, it is alleged, have entered Government service as teachers in other schools while they were under suspension and while the enquiry was pending against them. The orders of suspension were communicated to the District Educational Officer, Palghat, and he approved the same. Respondents 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 filed writ petitions in this court against the suspension orders but the orders were maintained. This court ordered that the enquiry into the charges must be conducted by an officer other than the District Educational Officer, Palghat, to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction. Accordingly the first respondent was nominated by the Director of Public Instruction to conduct the enquiry. He conducted the enquiry and prepared a report and forwarded it to the 9th respondent, the Director of Public Instruction. The first respondent issued notices to respondents 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 to show cause why the penalty proposed therein should not be imposed upon them. Thereafter the first respondent passed Ex. P-1 order withholding the increments of the respondents and directing their reinstatement in service. 3. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that under R.76 (4) the person who is designated by Kerala Education Rules as having authority to propose the punishments and issue the show cause notices is the Manager and not the first respondent and therefore the proceedings of the first respondent in issuing the show cause notices and imposing the punishment are without jurisdiction. Rule 76 (4) (i) and (ii) is as follows: "(i) After any inquiry held under sub-rule (2) the proceedings containing the record of evidence, the findings and the grounds therefor shall be forwarded by the Inquiring Officer to the Manager who shall implement the findings of the Inquiring Officer. Rule 76 (4) (i) and (ii) is as follows: "(i) After any inquiry held under sub-rule (2) the proceedings containing the record of evidence, the findings and the grounds therefor shall be forwarded by the Inquiring Officer to the Manager who shall implement the findings of the Inquiring Officer. (ii) On receipt of the records of inquiry and the findings therefor, the Manager shall come to a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, and then obtain the advice of the authority competent to sanction the imposition of the penalty proposed. On receipt of the advice the Manager shall call upon the teacher to show cause within a reasonable time, not exceeding one month, against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted. The Manager shall give to the teacher a copy of the report of inquiry together with the findings thereon. The representations, if any, submitted by the teacher shall be taken into consideration before the final order imposing the penalty is passed by the Manager with the sanction of the competent authority". It is clear from this rule that the penalty is to be proposed by the Manager and that the show cause notice is to be issued by him on the basis of the findings of the inquiry officer. No doubt, R.76 (4) (ii) obliges the Manager to obtain the advice of the authority competent to sanction the imposition of the penalty proposed, but it is the Manager who is to supply the teacher with copy of the report of the inquiry together with the findings thereon and it is he who has to take into account the representations, if any, submitted by the teacher and to pass the final order with the sanction of the competent authority. According to the petitioner these provisions have been violated in the instant case, and therefore he prays that a writ of certiorari might be issued to quash all proceedings subsequent to the forwarding of the report by the first respondent and also Ext. P-1 order. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first and 9th respondents submitted that the first respondent being a superior authority to the Manager is competent to impose any punishment which the Manager is competent to impose and therefore Ex. P1 order was passed with jurisdiction. I am not satisfied that this is a correct evaluation of the legal position. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first and 9th respondents submitted that the first respondent being a superior authority to the Manager is competent to impose any punishment which the Manager is competent to impose and therefore Ex. P1 order was passed with jurisdiction. I am not satisfied that this is a correct evaluation of the legal position. Under R.76 (4) (ii) it is the Manager who in the first instance is to come to a conclusion provisionally as regards the question of the penalty to be imposed and to issue the show cause notice and consider the representation of the delinquent and to impose the penalty. This precise question was considered in the case reported in 1965 KLT.174 and it was held that the Inquiry Officer has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice or to suggest provisionally the quantum or the nature of the penalty to be imposed upon the delinquent in that notice and that it is the function of the Manager to propose the penalty in the show cause notice and impose it. I follow that ruling and hold that Ex. P1 order was passed without jurisdiction and I quash it. The proper procedure is for the first respondent to forward the report to the Manager to take appropriate action on the report. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Allowed.