M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by consent of parties and after hearing the counsel for parties by the foliowing order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is A. Subramanya a trainee of Mechanical Group Trainees' course in the month of August, 1982, at the Industrial Training Institute, Hosur road. Bangalore. The Institute is run by the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka. He was kept under suspension from 25-9-1982 to 13 10 1982 on account of his suspected involvement in some ragging incidents resulting in altercation at the institute. A police complaint in that behalf was also lodged. Thereafter, the petitioner was called by the supervisory instructor who is said to have been appointed as enquiry officer and asked a few questions. After that he received a communication dated 13-10 1982 by which the 2nd respondent Principal of the Training Institute expelled the petitioner from the Institute for gross misconduct, as evidenced by Annexure-D to the petition. Aggrleved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief inter alia contending that annexure D is totally without jurisdiction as well as illegal in as much as the Principal 2nd respondent had no power to remove him from the rolls of the Institute as that power was only with the Director in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 23 (1) of the Training Manual for Industrial training Institutes/centres published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. ( 3 ) WHATEVER may be the nature of the provisions contained in the Manual, the fact remains that the Principal is not entrusted with the authority to expel the student at the Institute. Sri M. H. Motigi, learned H Ct. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, clearly concedes that the Principal did not have the power, though he had the power to suspend pending the enquiry and action against the erring student. It is useful to extract the relevant provision, namely, S. 23 (1) which is as follows :"23 (1) Suspensions, discharges and resignations :-The State Directors may discharge at their discretion such trainees as are recommended for. discharge by the Principals of Training Institutes/ centres on account of unsatisfactory progress, in training, misconduct, etc. It is useful to extract the relevant provision, namely, S. 23 (1) which is as follows :"23 (1) Suspensions, discharges and resignations :-The State Directors may discharge at their discretion such trainees as are recommended for. discharge by the Principals of Training Institutes/ centres on account of unsatisfactory progress, in training, misconduct, etc. For acts of indiscipline and misconduet the Principal of the Institute/centre should issue a written warning for the first offence. If the offence is repeated, bis case should be reported to the State director with a view to discharge. . . . ". If the above provision in the Manual governs the relationship of the trainee in the Institute and the Institute itself, the memo issued by the Principal at Annexure-D 5s clearly without jurisdiction in as much as his power is only to recommend for discharge and not to discharge the trainee himself. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the order cannot be sustained on the ground that no proper enquiry was held as the petitioner was never given an opportunity of knowing what other evidence the enquiry officer gathered nor the names of witnesses who had given evidence before the enquiry officer which apparently as evidenced by annexure D established his so-called guilt. As seen from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader, this does not appear to be wholly true. What is clear from the records Is that on 29 9-1982, 30 9 1982 and 1-10-1982 several students were present at the time of tnquiry Including the petitioner. But the petitioner was present on all the dates as can be seen from the questions addressed to htm as well as the statements read out to him. However, he does not appear to have been permitted to cross-examine any one of the witnesses examined, nor is there any indication that the petitioner asked for such right to cross examine the witnesses. In that circumstance though the method of domestic enquiry appears to have been somewhat novel, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have any opportunity at all nor aware of the charges agalnet him. The reading of the enquiry proceedings clearly indicates that he was in fact appraised of the statements of the other students who had complained of ragging including the stabbing by him of one of the other students in the Institute. The reading of the enquiry proceedings clearly indicates that he was in fact appraised of the statements of the other students who had complained of ragging including the stabbing by him of one of the other students in the Institute. I therefore do not think i should countenance the second of the arguments that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the order at Annexure-D is quashed as being without jurisdiction and without the authority of Jaw. According to the provisions contained in the Manual (S. 23 (1) of the Training Manual for Industrial training Institutes/centres), liberty is reserved to the Principal to make an appropriate recommendation to the State Director and await the State Director's orders thereon. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader also states that a criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner in CC No. 2533/1982 in the Court of the Metropolitan magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore. ( 7 ) BUT in all fairness it is needless to make an observation that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to make a representation to the State Director regarding the punishment that must be given to him, not because the petitioner has any legal right to do so but on the ground that he was entitled to a warning only for his first misconduct and only for his second offence he is required to be punished. If the petitioner makes sich a representation to the State Director, the state Director may pass such orders as he deems fit. ( 8 ) WITH these observations, this Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ( 9 ) SRI M. H. Motigi, learned High court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .