JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The appellant is the Manager of the M. S. Upper Primary School, Manjappara and the 3rd respondent was the Headmaster of the School. Certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against the Headmaster by the appellant and he sought permission of the District Educational Officer for imposing the punishment of removal from service that was proposed to be inflicted on the Headmaster. This was under Chap.14A, R.74 and 75 of the Kerala Education Rules. R.74 and 75(11)(c) read as follows: "74. The penalty of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service can be imposed by the Manager only with the previous sanction of the Director, in the case of teachers in the graduate teachers scale and Headmasters of Secondary Schools and Training Schools and of the District Educational Officer in the other cases. 75. Procedure for imposing major penalties. (1) to (10) : * * * (11) If the Manager is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in items (iv) to (viii) of R.65 should be imposed, he shall (a) and (J): * * * (c) On receipt of the representation, if any and after taking into consideration the representation, final orders shall be passed by the Manager imposing the penalty with the previous sanction of the competent authority." The District Educational Officer, by Ext. P-1 report, had found the charge of misappropriation against the Headmaster was grave. But as the Headmaster had made good the amount which he was charged with having misappropriated, he was of the view that there was no need to place the Headmaster under suspension. He therefore directed the Manager to reinstate the Headmaster. This direction was cancelled (Ext. P-11) and the Manager was asked to complete the disciplinary proceedings. The Manager sought previous permission of the District Educational Officer, proposing the punishment of removal from service. By Ext. P-14 order the District Educational Officer declined approval pointing out that no loss had been occasioned to the Department by the Headmaster as he had remitted the entire amount which he was charged with having misappropriated. He was of the view that the charges were not so grave, in the circumstances, as to warrant the imposition of the punishment of removal from service on the Headmaster. This order was confirmed on revision by the Government by Ext. He was of the view that the charges were not so grave, in the circumstances, as to warrant the imposition of the punishment of removal from service on the Headmaster. This order was confirmed on revision by the Government by Ext. P-16 dated 18th December 1974.A writ petition to quash the same -- O.P. No. 249 of 1975 -- was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court For failure to comply with the directions of the District Educational Officer to impose a lesser and a minor punishment on the Headmaster, O.P. No. 2373 of 1976 was filed in this Court. That O. P. was also dismissed by a learned Judge W. A. No. 325 of 1976 is against the Judgment in O. P. No. 249 of 1975; and W. A. No. 326 of 1976 is against the Judgment in O. P. No. 2373 of 1966. 2. Counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that if W. A. No. 325 of 1976 cannot succeed, he cannot possibly have any grievance to urge in W. A. 326 of 1976. We shall accordingly consider the grounds of attack in W.A. No. 325 of 1976. 3. The attack of Counsel for the appellant was that at the stage of granting previous sanction for the imposition of the punishment proposed, the sanctioning authority under Chap.21, R.75(11)(c) was not to concern itself with the question of the quantum, or the gravity of the punishment proposed. We have already extracted the terms of the Rule. We think it difficult to say that the appropriateness or the gravity of the punishment is a totally irrelevant circumstance at the stage of granting the previous sanction required by the Rule. The approving authority is not to act as a rubber stamp automatically approving the suggested punishment. Equally, he may not be an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the disciplinary proceedings. Between these two extremes, the limits of power of the approval must be found; and it is not altogether an easy task to fix his powers at the proper angle between the two extremes. On an overall view of the position, we cannot rule out altogether the appropriateness of the punishment as an element not germane at all to the question of granting or withholding previous sanction. We think we are fortified in this view by one of the provisions which appears in the statutory rules themselves. On an overall view of the position, we cannot rule out altogether the appropriateness of the punishment as an element not germane at all to the question of granting or withholding previous sanction. We think we are fortified in this view by one of the provisions which appears in the statutory rules themselves. R.81 of Chap.14A which provides for appeal against the imposition of punishment by the Manager, provides that the appeal shall lie to the authority next higher in rank to the one who accorded sanction for the imposition of the punishment. This, it appears to us, can only be on the ground that it may not be altogether fair or proper to allow the authority who granted previous sanction for imposition of penalty, to sit in appeal over the disciplinary proceedings. That in turn we presume, can be on the footing that the authority granting sanction must pay regard to the nature of the charge as well as the nature of the penalty proposed to be inflicted against the delinquent teacher. This seems to afford some indication that the appropriateness of the punishment is not altogether irrelevant at the stage of granting the previous sanction. 4. We have also the additional difficulty that in a matter such as this, interference would be difficult in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. Especially does it appear to be so in the instant case, where Ext. P-14 order of the District Educational Officer was confirmed in revision by the Government by Ext. P-16, and a learned Judge of this Court refused to interfere under Art.226. These are powerful considerations which forbid our interference in appeal. 5. We should however like to point out one aspect of the matter in the judgment under appeal. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was power in the Government to take disciplinary proceedings under S.12 and 12 A of the Kerala Education Act. We think these sections are not appropriate; and that the appropriate statutory provisions are Chap.14A, R.74 and 75 which we have quoted earlier. We dismiss this appeal but in the circumstances without costs. W.A. No. 326 of 1976 6. We think these sections are not appropriate; and that the appropriate statutory provisions are Chap.14A, R.74 and 75 which we have quoted earlier. We dismiss this appeal but in the circumstances without costs. W.A. No. 326 of 1976 6. In view of our dismissal of W. A. No. 325 of 1976 it follows and indeed it was fairly admitted by Counsel for the appellant that he cannot have any grievance against the Judgment appealed against in this writ appeal. Once it is found as we have actually found that the order granting previous sanction is not open to attack, Counsel for the appellant very fairly admitted that he is bound to comply with the direction to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and to impose a minor punishment on the Headmaster. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.