JUDGMENT M.U. Issac, J. 1. These six writ petitions arise out of the same facts; and they involve common questions. They were, therefore, heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these cases were lecturers in the T. K. Madhava Memorial College, Nangiarkulangara which is a private college affiliated to the Kerala University. In the Pre degree Examination conducted by the University in April 1966, the petitioners were appointed by the Syndicate of the University as Assistant Superintendents along with other persons. Subsequently, it was found that serious mal practices were committed by the students in that examination with the connivance and assistance of the petitioners and others. After a preliminary enquiry, an Enquiry Commission was constituted by the University to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the petitioners and another lecturer in the above College. All of them were also placed under suspension pending the enquiry. This was done by the management of the College, as directed by the University. The Commission consisted of a retired District and Sessions Judge as Chairman, the then Principal of the Law College, Trivandrum and the Dean of Economics in the University. The Commission framed definite charges against the above seven persons, and conducted a regular enquiry in respect of the said charges. It found that the petitioners were guilty of the charges, while the other lecturer was exonerated. A copy of the Commission's report has been marked as Ex. P6 in O. P. No. 1535 of 1967. Ex. P 5 among other things recommended that the management of the College may be directed to relieve from service forthwith all these petitioners, and that the petitioners may be debarred from serving as teachers in the Kerala University or any institution affiliated to this University for the different periods mentioned in Ex. P 5. The Syndicate of the University considered the report of the Commission, and issued notices to the petitioners to show cause why the punishments recommended by the Commission I should not be imposed on them. The petitioners showed cause against the proposed punishments; but their explanations were not accepted and the Syndicate resolved to impose on the petitioners the punishments proposed by the Commission. The petitioners showed cause against the proposed punishments; but their explanations were not accepted and the Syndicate resolved to impose on the petitioners the punishments proposed by the Commission. A copy of the Syndicate's decision was duly communicated to the College; and accordingly the management of the College issued orders relieving the petitioners from service with effect from the date on which they were placed under suspension. Before the orders relieving the petitioners from service were communicated to them, some of them applied to the Public Service Commission for being recruited in the State Service; and they filed some of these writ petitions, and obtained orders of interim stay of further proceedings by the University and the College in the light of the Commission's report. In the face of the said orders, some of them happened to be selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment in the State Service. These Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings taken against the petitioners by the Enquiry Commission appointed by the University, and the orders of the University debarring the petitioners from appointment as teachers in any college for the different periods mentioned therein as well as the orders passed by the College relieving the petitioners from service. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners first questioned the validity of the proceedings by the Enquiry Commission on the ground that the proceedings were violative of principles of natural justice, and its findings could not also be supported on any materials. The relevant papers relating to the enquiry proceedings have been produced in court by the parties. They show that definite charges were framed against the petitioners, that they were given reasonable opportunities to submit their explanations to the same, to cross examine the witnesses examined to prove the charges and to let in their own evidence, that they availed of the said opportunities, and that the Commission's findings were arrived at after hearing the petitioners and considering all the relevant evidence on record. The contention that the proceedings of the Commission are violative of natural justice cannot be sustained. The contention that the proceedings of the Commission are violative of natural justice cannot be sustained. In the light of the view which I take regarding the power of the University and the College to impose on the petitioners the punishment recommended by the Enquiry Commission I refrain from expressing any opinion on the question whether its findings can be supported on evidence in respect of all or any of the petitioners. 4. The next contention pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the University is not competent to impose the impugned punishment on the petitioners. Regarding the termination of the petitioners' service from the College, it was submitted that it was done by the College, and that the said action need be justified only by the College. The learned counsel appearing for the University, therefore, sought to justify only the punishment imposed by the University, viz., debarring the petitioners from being appointed as teachers for different periods in any college under the University or affiliated to the University. He referred me to certain provisions contained in the Kerala University Act, the University of Kerala Ordinances, and the First Statutes of the University of Kerala. The Act does not contain any provision empowering the University to punish teachers of affiliated colleges. The provisions in the Act, to which reference was made by him, are those which deal with the powers of the Syndicate to make Ordinances and Statutes and to do other things. The validity of the provisions in the Ordinances and the Statutes on which reliance was made by the learned counsel was not questioned by the other side. It is not, therefore, necessary to refer to any of the provisions in the Act; and the question for decision is whether the Ordinances or the Statutes contain any provision empowering the Syndicate to impose the punishment in question on the petitioners. The learned counsel for the University first referred me to Statute Nos. 12 to 18 in Chap.34 of the First Statutes of the University of Kerala. This Chapter deals with the affiliation of Colleges; and Statutes 7 to 31 therein fall under the heading "Conditions to be satisfied by affiliated Colleges," and they lay down the said conditions. The learned counsel for the University first referred me to Statute Nos. 12 to 18 in Chap.34 of the First Statutes of the University of Kerala. This Chapter deals with the affiliation of Colleges; and Statutes 7 to 31 therein fall under the heading "Conditions to be satisfied by affiliated Colleges," and they lay down the said conditions. As far as I can see, there is nothing in any of the statutes in this Chapter which confers any power on the University or the Syndicate to impose any punishment on a teacher of an affiliated College for any matter. 5. The learned counsel for the University next relied on S.24 in Chap.9 of the University of Kerala Ordinances. Chap.9 deals with conduct of examinations. S.24 thereof reads as follows :- "If the Syndicate is satisfied after enquiry that the integrity of a University Examination has been violated at an examination centre, as a consequence of the conduct of any person connected with the conduct of examination at the Centre, the Syndicate may punish such person in such manner as it may deem fit and may also abolish the centre for conduct of examinations for such periods as it may deem fit." The learned counsel submitted, and in my opinion rightly, that the petitioners in these cases would fall within the ambit of the above section. But the question for consideration is what is the nature of the punishment that the Syndicate can impose on a person connected with the conduct of an examination and violating its integrity. It was not contended that it would be within the powers of the Syndicate under the above section to award a sentence of imprisonment or fine on the offender. It was also not contended that the Syndicate can, under the above section, remove from service a teacher employed in an affiliated College; and it was rightly conceded that the power of removal in such a case is vested only in his employer. But the learned counsel submitted that the University is entitled to debar such persons from being appointed in any affiliated College. In the first place, the question of appointment does not arise in the case of a person who is already in service. If the University has no power to remove such a person from service, there is no meaning in debarring them from future appointment. In the first place, the question of appointment does not arise in the case of a person who is already in service. If the University has no power to remove such a person from service, there is no meaning in debarring them from future appointment. Secondly the University is a statutory creature; and it cannot have any power which has not been conferred on it by statute either by express provision, or by necessary implication. S.24 in Chap.9 of the Ordinance does not contain any such power. No doubt, this section confers on the Syndicate the power to punish a person connected with a University Examination and violating its integrity. But any punishment that can be imposed must be within its power of enforcement and must have a sanction behind it. The learned counsel for the University has not been able to draw my attention to any statutory provisions which enjoins the management of an affiliated College not to appoint in its service, a person found by the Syndicate 'guilty of violating the integrity of a University examination.' It may be open for the Syndicate in the case of such a person, if an examinee, to debar him permanently or for any period from sitting for a University Examination, or if a person otherwise connected with the examination, not to associate him in any examination, by being appointed for any purpose connected with the examination, permanently or for any period. In my opinion, this is the limit of the power that the University can exercise under S.24. This section does not empower the University or Syndicate to debar a person from being appointed in an affiliated College for any period. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the College, when his attention was invited to S.10(a) in Chap.57 of University of Kerala Ordinances, did not contend that the action taken by the College, viz., termination of the petitioners' service was in compliance with the provisions of the above section. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the College, when his attention was invited to S.10(a) in Chap.57 of University of Kerala Ordinances, did not contend that the action taken by the College, viz., termination of the petitioners' service was in compliance with the provisions of the above section. S.10(a) reads as follows :- "10(a) It shall be competent for the management to terminate the service of any teacher at any time in case of wilful neglect of duty, disobedience to the lawful orders of the Principal or misconduct involving moral turpitude after giving him reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." The petitioners were relieved from service, without the management giving them any opportunity to show cause against the said action. The termination of their service is, therefore, patently violative of the above statutory protection. While the above section provides that a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action should be given to the teacher before his service is terminated. It does not state that an enquiry should be conducted by the employer before an action is taken. In this case, the petitioners were given such an opportunity in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Commission appointed by the University. It may, therefore, be open for the management of the College, if they consider that action should be taken against the petitioners to proceed on the basis of the report of the Commission or institute a fresh enquiry against them, and take such action as deemed necessary against the petitioners in compliance with S.10(a) of Chap.57 of the Ordinance. 7. In the result, I quash the orders passed by the University and its Syndicate against the petitioners debarring them from being appointed as teachers in the Kerala University or any Institution affiliated to this University for different terms mentioned therein. I also quash the orders passed by the College terminating the service of the petitioners. I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the management of the College taking any necessary action against the petitioners according to law. It is unfortunate that the petitioners succeed in these cases due to want of proper and sufficient statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the University brought to my notice that such provisions have been enacted under S.66 of the Kerala University Act, 1969. It is unfortunate that the petitioners succeed in these cases due to want of proper and sufficient statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the University brought to my notice that such provisions have been enacted under S.66 of the Kerala University Act, 1969. These Original Petitions are disposed of in the manner stated above. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.