( 1 ) R. K. Manohar, the petitioner, is the principal of the Vitta. Typewriting institute at Chitradurga. He has been debarred from taking two examinations including the one in which certain malpractice was committed in Novr 1972. The order was made by the Chairman of the karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said order in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constn. ( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared for Shorthand Senior Grade examination in Novr 1972. His result was withheld on the ground that he had committed malpractice. In that connection, there was an enquiry followed by an order debarring him from taking one examination in shorthand which was limited to the examination to which he had already appeared. Calling into question the validity of that order, he approached this Court with an application under Art. 226 of the Constn in WP. 2022 of 1973. When the petition came up for hearing, Counsel for the Board produced a memo stating that he had no objection for quashing the impugned order therein, if liberty is reserved to the authority to take fresh action in accordance with law. On 13th Deer, 1973, this Court, while recording the memo, made an order as follows :" In view of the said memo, these writ petitions are allowed, and the memo bearing No. C. 8 Exam. 74. 72-73 d|-23-3-1973 in so far as it pertains to the petitioner in these two cases, is hereby quashed reserving liberty to the respondent to take fresh action in accordance with law. If the respondent decides to take fresh action he shalf take such action and conclude the proceedings within three months from today. If the respondent decides not to hold an enquiry, it is obvious that he shall proceed to announce the results,. No costs. "with the liberty thus reserved, the Chairman continued the proceedings, but did not conclude it within the time allowed by this Court. On 15th March 1974, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the materials collected against him and asking him to show cause why he should not be debarred from taking two examinations including the one in which the malpractice was committed. On 15th March 1974, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the materials collected against him and asking him to show cause why he should not be debarred from taking two examinations including the one in which the malpractice was committed. The petitioner in his reply, while denying those allegations, stated that the Chairman has no right to impose any penalty after 13th March 1974 as the time granted by this Court for concluding the enquiry had expired by then. On 26th April 1974, the chairman rejecting the contention of the petitioner, made a brief order stating thus :" The Explanation offered by the candidates under reference is not convincing. The very fact of their refusal to take dictation at a lower speesd goes to prove that they had resorted to unfair means to come out successful in the examination. Considering all aspects and according to powers vested in Cl. V-25-3 of the Regulations of the Board, Sri R. K. Manohar, Reg. No. 20548 and smt H. C. Sunandamma, Reg. No. 20544 candidates for English Shortr hand Senior Grade Examination of Novr 1972 at Govt High School centre at Chitradurga are debarred from taking two examinations inculding the one in which the malpractice was committed (i. e. Novr 1972 and May 1973 Examinations ). No further appeal will- be entertained by this Board. " ( 3 ) CHALLENGING the validity of the above order, the petitioner has again approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constn. Counsel for the petitioner attacks the decision of the Chairman as being erroneous and without jurisdiction. He says first, that it was not open to the Chairman to impose the penalty after the expiry of the time granted by this Court in WP. 2022 of 1973, as he has been given only three months to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner. It is true that this court observed in the previous petition that "if the respondent (Chairman) decides to take fresh action, he shall take such action and conclude the proceedings within three months" Apparently, the Chairman did not follow that order. He did not also approach this Court for extension of time. Even in his statement of objections filed in this petition, he has not given a word of explanation for his belated order. He did not also approach this Court for extension of time. Even in his statement of objections filed in this petition, he has not given a word of explanation for his belated order. It is indeed a matter for regret, if the Chairman was not aware of the principle that the respectful and faithful obedience to the Court orders is a must for the administration of justice which is so vital for the establishment of the rule of law. But, be that as it may,, the impugned order cannot be quashed solely the ground that it was made after the time allowed by this Court. The propriety of the order is one thing, the validity of which is quite a different thing. The Chairman while disobeying the order of this Court might have perilously trespassed into the realm of contempt. But that is no ground for me to invalidate the action taken by him in his undoubted jurisdiction. It is not urged before me that the Chairman otherwise, has no jurisdiction to make the impugned order. The first contention, therefore, fails and is rejected. ( 4 ) THE contention next urged for the petitioner relates to the irregularity in the enquiry held against the petitioner. It is said that the Chairman did not personally hold the entire enquiry, and he delegated his power to the Secretary of the Board, to collect evidence against the petitioner, which is said to be contrary to Regulation 26 (2) of the Karnataka Secondary education Examinations Board Regulations, 1968. Regln. 26 (2), no doubt, provides that the Chairman shall hold investigations into the malpractice and issue a show cause notice to the candidate specifying the nature of misconduct committed and indicating the penalty proposed to be inflictes and giving opportunity to the candidate to make a statement of defence within a reasonable time. All these material steps, undisputedly, have been taken by the Chairman. But he had directed an oral enquiry by the senior Asst Director of Public Instruction and further directed the Secretary of the Board to take a trial dictation from the petitioner to find out the standard of the petitioner. This kind of delegation cannot be said to be impermissible. All these material steps, undisputedly, have been taken by the Chairman. But he had directed an oral enquiry by the senior Asst Director of Public Instruction and further directed the Secretary of the Board to take a trial dictation from the petitioner to find out the standard of the petitioner. This kind of delegation cannot be said to be impermissible. The delegation of the power to "enquire and report" to a. subordinate authority, provided the authority to decide retains to itself the power to decide, is permissible even in the quasi judicial-functions and also in the exercise of a statutory power of an administrative nature, sub- ject to the application of. the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare". Whatever be the nature of the power vested in the Chairman by Regln. 26 (2) the Chairman did not abdicate his power in asking his subordinates to enquire and report about the malpractice committed by the petitioner. The Chairman himself looked into all those materials, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and made the impugned order. His action, therefore, cannot be said to have been vitiated by any irregularity in the procedure or by the vice of excessive delegation ( 5 ) THAT, however, is not the end of the matter. I still have to consider the last contention whether the impugned order is perverse and based on no evidence. On this aspect, it seems to me, that the petitioner has little precious in his favour. The matter really turns on the proficiency of the petitioner in Shorthand writing. One crucial circumstance which is against the petitioner is that he was asked to be present by the Secreary of the board for taking trial dictation just to verify whether he was proficient in the standard in which he had written the examination. The petitioner was present before the Secretary, but he refused to take the dictation. In doing so, in my view, he was not fair to himself. He could have been a little more free and frank in demonstrating his proficiency to dispel the lurking suspicion surrounding his conduct. He has given the chance to everybody to suspect his bonafides. Of course, that was not the only circumstance which weighed with the Chairman and formed the basis for the impugned order. He has perused the collection of materials regarding the malpractice committed by the petitioner. He has given the chance to everybody to suspect his bonafides. Of course, that was not the only circumstance which weighed with the Chairman and formed the basis for the impugned order. He has perused the collection of materials regarding the malpractice committed by the petitioner. He has given an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. He has considered the explanation offered by the petitioner. He found that it was not convincing. This procedure adopted by the Chairman was sufficiently in accordance with regulation 26 (2) of the Karnataka, Secondary Education Examinations board Regulations, 1968. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. ( 6 ) IN the result, the rule is discharged without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .