Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a minor boy aged 16 years represented by his father as guardian. The petitioner was studying in the IX Standard in the Government High School, Koduvayur during the last academic year 1971-72. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was turned out of school by the Headmistress on the 1st March, 1972, along with two other students in connection with some incident which took place in the class on that day and that since then the petitioner was not permitted to attend the classes. The case put forward by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that without passing any written order or assigning any reasons the respondent has virtually dismissed the petitioner from the school by indefinitely keeping him out of the classes. It is contended that the said action of the respondent is in contravention of clause (iii) of R.6 of Chapter IX of the Kerala Education Rules and is also arbitrary and mala fide. On the basis of these allegations the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the class and to sit for the annual examination of the IX Standard to be conducted in March, 1972. 2. The respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit wherein she has submitted that an order placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry has been passed by her on 18 31972 and that though it was sent to the petitioner's guardian by registered post acknowledgment due it was returned unserved. It is also stated that simultaneously charges were framed against the petitioner and the memo of charges was also forwarded to the petitioner's father on 18 31972 along with the order of suspension by registered post. It is submitted by the respondent that the order of suspension was passed since there was prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct and that it was detrimental to the interests of the school to permit him to attend classes until he was cleared of the charges. It is also submitted by the respondent that the action has been taken by her bona fide in the interests of maintaining proper standards of character and discipline in the institution. 3. It is also submitted by the respondent that the action has been taken by her bona fide in the interests of maintaining proper standards of character and discipline in the institution. 3. From the statements contained in the counter-affidavit it would appear that on 1-3-1972 a lady teacher of the school who was teaching in Standard IX-H complained to the Headmistress (respondent) that while she was instructing the students of the said class in the afternoon of that date she noticed that something unusual and curious was going on in the back benches and eventually a student by name Mohandas handed over to her in open class a book entitled containing highly obscene nude pictures and stories. Thereupon the respondent questioned the students including Mohandas and it was disclosed that the petitioner had caused Mohandas to band over the book to the teacher promising to pay him Rs. 10/- in case he formally presented the book to the teacher in open class. It was further disclosed that the petitioner had entrusted the said sum of Rs. 10/- with two boys of the same class by name Kannan and Krishnan with the stipulation that they were to hand over the amount to Mohandas after he gave the book to the class teacher. From the statements of the various students, who where questioned, it was also gathered by the respondent that the petitioner had brought to the class on the 1st March, 1972, two obscene books in the morning itself and that the books were under circulation among the students till the afternoon when one of the books was formally handed over to the teacher as arranged by the petitioner. It is submitted by the respondent that it was in the light of these facts which were brought to light during the questioning of the students and which disclosed that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of a very serious misconduct, that she asked the petitioner not to attend the classes until the matter was enquired into further It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that before further action in the matter could be proceeded with the petitioner attempted to organise a strike in the school on the 7th March, 1972, and created a disturbance by inducing several students to stand in, the verandah of their classes when the bell for the assembly had already gone. The respondent submits that in view of the said further development also it was bona fide felt by her that it will be detrimental to the interests of the school to allow the petitioner to attend classes until the enquiry against him was completed and hence she passed order on 18 91972 suspending the petitioner from the school pending enquiry. Simultaneously she also framed charges against the petitioner and communicated them to the petitioner's guardian by registered post. 4. It is argued by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that under the Kerala Education Rules no power is vested with the Headmaster of an institution to suspend a student pending enquiry. I do not see my way to accept this contention. It is fully within the scope of the disciplinary powers of the head of an institution to direct that a student, against whom grave charges of misconduct are pending and whose presence in the class is, in the opinion of the Headmaster, likely to cause an unwholesome influence, should not attend the classes pending completion of the enquiry against him. The power to direct a student to keep out of the classes pending enquiry into grave charges against him is inherently vested in the head of an educational institution as an essential attribute of his general disciplinary power over the students and so long as the said power is exercised in good faith and not vindictively or for ulterior purposes and the period of suspension is not unreasonably protracted the action taken by the Headmaster will not be interfered with by this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. I have already adverted to the fact that the petitioner has brought this writ petition on the basis that the Headmistress has not passed any written orders at all suspending him from the school. As a matter of fact, however, an order of suspension had been passed against the petitioner by the respondent on 18 3 1972 and despatched by registered post to the petitioner's father on 18 31972 itself. 6. There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the respondent ought to have given a notice and afforded a hearing to the petitioner's parent before passing the order of suspension. In the present case the suspension has not been ordered as a punishment but only as an interim measure pending completion of the enquiry against the student. 6. There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the respondent ought to have given a notice and afforded a hearing to the petitioner's parent before passing the order of suspension. In the present case the suspension has not been ordered as a punishment but only as an interim measure pending completion of the enquiry against the student. The applicability of clause (iii) of R.6 in Chapter IX of the Kerala Education Rules is limited to cases where a student is suspended by way of punishment after his being found guilty of any misconduct and its provisions are not attracted to a case of suspension pending enquiry. There is nothing in the general law that casts any such obligation to give a prior notice and hearing to the parent on the Headmaster of a school before a student is suspended from the class pending enquiry. The very nature of the power is such that it is to be exercised when immediate action is called for in the larger interests of the whole institution and the requirement of audi alteram partem is not attracted in such a case. I may usefully refer in this connection to a decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in A. Raghavan v. D.E.O., Attingal, (1971 KLT. 658), wherein it was held that even an order of punishment imposed on a student by the Headmaster of a school under R.6 of Chapter IX of the Kerala Education Rules cannot be impugned on the ground of failure to apply the principles of natural justice. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is after all a young boy and that his entire future will be placed in serious jeopardy until he is enabled to pursue his academic studies in the very same school. It is not for this court to say at this stage whether or not the petitioner should be permitted to continue his studies in the very same school because that would essentially depend on the final result of the enquiry that is pending against him. It is not for this court to say at this stage whether or not the petitioner should be permitted to continue his studies in the very same school because that would essentially depend on the final result of the enquiry that is pending against him. It would certainly have been desirable if the enquiry had been completed expeditiously; but, as pointed out by the Government Pleader, the respondent cannot be blamed for not pursuing the action against the petitioner during the time when the matter had become sub judice before this court, particularly since the petitioner had also obtained an interim order from this court permitting him to provisionally sit for the annual examination. 8. The petitioner has put forward a plea that the impugned action has been taken by the respondent mala fide and that it was "actuated by obstinacy and false sense of prestige". It is brought to my notice by the Government Pleader that the school in question is a mixed institution where large number of girl students are also studying. There can be no doubt that prompt and stern action by the head of such an institution has necessarily to be taken, if it is found that any activity calculated to disrupt the maintenance of proper moral standards on the part of the students is going on in the school. The file produced by the Government Pleader contains a copy of the memorandum dated 18 31972 sent by the respondent to the petitioner's father setting out the charges framed against the petitioner. A perusal of the said document shows that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner involving gross indiscipline and depravity of conduct. The respondent has sworn in her counter-affidavit that the order of suspension was passed by her bona fide only on her being prima facie satisfied that it will be detrimental to the interests of the institution to allow the petitioner to attend the classes pending enquiry completed against him. I have no hesitation to accept this submission made on behalf of the respondent and to reject the plea of malafides put forward by the petitioner. 9. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that there are absolutely no grounds justifying any interference by this court with the impugned action taken by the respondent. I have no hesitation to accept this submission made on behalf of the respondent and to reject the plea of malafides put forward by the petitioner. 9. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that there are absolutely no grounds justifying any interference by this court with the impugned action taken by the respondent. Since the academic year 1972-73 has already commenced it is only just and proper that the enquiry against the petitioner is completed with the utmost expedition. I direct that this should be done within two weeks from today. Subject to the above direction this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent which I fix at Rs. 150/-.