Judgment :- 1. The appeal is against the order of a learned judge of this Court passed in a writ petition to quash the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Educational Officer, Pappinisseri, in disciplinary proceedings taken against a Peon (the 2nd respondent in the writ petition) of the Korjan Upper Primary School, Kakkat, Cannanore, of which the writ-petitioner was the Manager. The disciplinary proceedings were taken in respect of some misconduct, which it is unnecessary to specify, charged against the Peon. The enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer, at the end of which, he sent up Ext. P1 report finding the Peon not guilty of misconduct charged, cancelling his suspension, directing reinstatement and treating the period of suspension as leave. It was at this stage that the petitioner came up to this Court to quash the report. The learned judge noticed the petitioner's grievance and the way in which the enquiry was conducted, and commented that the writ-petitioner was all along taking a non-co-operative, and even a very cantankerous, attitude, that she deliberately avoided participating in the enquiry and did not even produce the necessary evidence including the witnesses or even a statement of the case. In the circumstances, it was observed that the writ-petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the nature of the enquiry. The learned judge also observed that as the report had observed that the Peon was not guilty, no action was to be taken against him. Having said this, the learned judge proceeded: "But as to the final action to be taken if is the petitioner's case that it roust be left to him. R.75[10] of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules provides that after enquiry the enquiring authority shall forward a report of enquiry to the Manager. Sub-rule 11 provides that if the Manager is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in items 4 to 8 of R.65 is to be imposed he should adopt a certain procedure including furnishing the copy of the report to the appointing authority. Of course the report here is one which holds the second respondent to be not guilty and no action is to be taken against the second respondent. Of course the report here is one which holds the second respondent to be not guilty and no action is to be taken against the second respondent. But all the same the final order necessarily must be by the manager based upon the report that he receives and the complaint is sustainable to the extent the Assistant Educational Officer has incompetently taken upon himself the duty of passing the final order. To that extent Ext. P1 calls for interference. 4. Therefore while I see no reason to disturb the enquiry proceedings or the report of the Assistant Educational Officer, inasmuch as he has not conformed to the procedure prescribed in R.75 of Chapter XIV-A the first respondent is directed to forward a report to the petitioner and the petitioner shall, within one month from the date of receipt of the report, complete the proceedings in the light of the report received from the Assistant Educational Officer. 5. The question of reinstatement need not await final disposal. This is because reinstatement is not as a consequence of the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding but the result of the cancellation of the suspension order. The Assistant Educational Officer has found that the suspension order need not continue because the charges are not proved in the enquiry and it is open to him to direct the cancellation of the suspension and that also has been done under Ext. P1 order. Therefore reinstatement of the second respondent has to be done forthwith, even before the disciplinary proceedings are completed. I am particularly making mention of this in view of the attitude of the petitioner as evidenced by bis conduct. He is directed hereby to implement the order of the Assistant Educational Officer, to reinstate the second respondent, within 10 days from today without pleading any excuse for non-implementation." 2. We cannot endorse the reasoning or conclusion of the learned judge, or record cur agreement or with the result disclosed. Chapter XIV-A R.75 governs the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule 10 provides for forwarding the record of enquiry to the Manager. Sub-rule 11 provides the action to be taken by the Manager after receipt of the said report. The learned judge has rightly observed that at the stage of submitting the enquiry report the Assistant Educational Officer was wrong in passing final orders. Sub-rule 10 provides for forwarding the record of enquiry to the Manager. Sub-rule 11 provides the action to be taken by the Manager after receipt of the said report. The learned judge has rightly observed that at the stage of submitting the enquiry report the Assistant Educational Officer was wrong in passing final orders. He had peremptorily directed reinstatement of the Peon, ordered cancellation of his suspension and directed that the period of suspension be treated as leave. The suspension by the Manager, originally for thirty days, was extended, on sanction granted, by the Assistant Educational Officer, for continuance of the suspension. Whatever be the attitude of the petitioner at the enquiry, there was no justification for the Assistant Educational Officer to trespass into the Manager's sphere of authority. His direction for reinstatement, cancellation of suspension and the further direction to treat the period of suspension as have, were all encroachments on the Manager's powers. We are not prepared to accept the argument of counsel for the respondents that to the extent to which this was done, Ext. P1 may well be understood as a separate or an independent order of the Assistant Educational Officer recording his view against the further continuance of the suspension. It is not possible for us, in the circumstances, to so regard the order. The direction of the learned judge to reinstate the 2nd respondent herein was, unjustified and cannot be sustained We would have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned judge directing reinstatement. But counsel for the 2nd respondent pressed the objection that the writ petition filed to quash Ext. P1 order is itself not maintainable, as the appellant before us has an alternative remedy by way of revision under Chapter XIV-A R.92 of the Rules. In view of this, it was contended that under Art.226 (3) introduced by the Constitution 42nd Amendment, the writ petition itself would not be maintainable and would abate by reason of the provisions of S.58 of the 42nd Amendment Act 1976. The objection is well-founded and must prevail. Having regard also to the fact that the 2nd respondent, in pursuance of the learned judge's order, was reinstated in 1974, and has continued in service till date, we think that interests of justice do not warrant interference with this part of the learned judge's order. The objection is well-founded and must prevail. Having regard also to the fact that the 2nd respondent, in pursuance of the learned judge's order, was reinstated in 1974, and has continued in service till date, we think that interests of justice do not warrant interference with this part of the learned judge's order. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. Dismissed.