Judgment :- 1. Petitioner in OP. 1423/86 (fourth respondent in OP. 1576/86) is a High School Assistant in the High School of which first respondent in the former OP. (Petitioner in the latter OP) is the Manager. Fourth respondent in the former OP. is the Headmaster of the school. 2. As per memo dated 23-4-1981. charges were framed against the teacher for absence from duty over a long period. As per the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'the Rules'), the District Educational Officer conducted inquiry and in his report dated 6-5-1982 found the teacher guilty of the charge. Manager sought sanction of the Deputy Director of Education to impose on the teacher the punishment of removal from service. The request was rejected on 22-9-1982. Thereafter, Manager sought sanction to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. That was also rejected. Manager challenged this order before this Court in OP. 2553/1983. OP. was dismissed directing the Manager to avail the remedy of revision before the Government available under R.92 of Chapter XIV- A of the Rules. Manager filed revision in due course and the Government granted him sanction to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement. 3. Thereafter, Manager imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 30 6-1980 (the date from which the teacher was said to have been absent unauthorisedly) Teacher filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education under R.80 of the Rules. That was dismissed. Teacher filed revision before the State Government under R.92. Government on 21-2-1986 passed an order (Ext. P3 in the former OP. and Ext. P-10 in the latter OP.) holding that the punishment imposed is excessive, directing reinstatement of the teacher and modifying the punishment to one barring two increments without cumulative effect. The teacher has filed OP. 1423/86 seeking enforcement of this order on the allegation that he is not being reinstated or readmitted to duty. Manager has filed OP. 1576/86 seeking to quash the Government Order. 4. Learned counsel who appears for the Manager contended that the State Government which earlier granted sanction for imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot interfere after the punishment has been imposed. Learned counsel submitted that against such an order no appeal or revision would lie. Learned counsel further contended that the State Government has no power to reduce the punishment; if at all, it can direct re-consideration of the matter. Learned counsel submitted that against such an order no appeal or revision would lie. Learned counsel further contended that the State Government has no power to reduce the punishment; if at all, it can direct re-consideration of the matter. In any event, it is contended. Manager should have been given personal hearing and since that was not given, the order is vitiated. 5. S.12 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 deals with conditions of service of aided school teachers. Sub-s. (2) states that no teacher of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by the manager without the previous sanction of the officer authorised by the Government in that behalf, or placed under suspension by the manager for a continuous period exceeding 15 days without such previous sanction. S.12A vests in the State Government disciplinary powers over teachers of aided schools. 6. Relevant rules are contained in Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. R.65 enumerates the various penalties which could be imposed. They include compulsory retirement, removal from service, dismissal from service etc. Note (2) to the Rule states that no punishment shall be imposed without giving the person affected an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. R.74 states that 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. R.75 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. After the inquiry contemplated therein, according to sub-rule (11), if the Manager is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in items (iv) to (vii) of R.68 (major penalties) should be imposed, he shall furnish to the teacher a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action. 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. 7. 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. 7. R.80 states that a teacher shall be entitled to appeal from an order imposing on him any penalties specified in R.65 to the next higher authority to whom the former authority is subordinate. R.81 states that where sanction has been accorded for the imposition of any of the penalties by any authority then the appeal shall lie to the next higher authority to whom the authority who accorded sanction is subordinate. R.88 deals with consideration of appeals. Appellate authority is vested, inter alia, with the power to examine whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass orders setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. R.92 deals with revisional powers of the Government. In exercise of such powers, Government may confirm, modify or set aside the order, imposing any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance penalty imposed by the order or remit the case to the lower authority. 8. The Rules show that before imposing a major penalty on a teacher, Manager has to obtain previous sanction of the prescribed competent authority. Where sanction has been accorded for imposition of such penalty, there is a right of appeal to the next higher authority and right of revision before the Government. The order imposing penalty also is appealable under R.80 and revisable under R.92. The procedure for imposition of major penalties after disciplinary enquiry is over thus consists of two stages. At the earlier stage. Manager has to provisionally make up his mind to impose the penalty, obtain sanction from the statutory authority and issue notice to the teacher concerned. Where sanction is obtained, be can proceed to impose the penalty after considering representation of the teacher. Where, ultimately, he imposes penalty with sanction, the aggrieved teacher has remedy before the superior authorities. There is no express limitation on the right of appeal or a revision after the imposition of penalty. Where sanction is obtained, be can proceed to impose the penalty after considering representation of the teacher. Where, ultimately, he imposes penalty with sanction, the aggrieved teacher has remedy before the superior authorities. There is no express limitation on the right of appeal or a revision after the imposition of penalty. There is nothing in the above rules or in the scheme of the rules from which an implied limitation can be read. The teacher is afforded additional protection by insisting that the Manager should seek previous sanction. To say that the statutory authority which granted sanction for imposing a penalty cannot exercise appellate or revisional powers in regard to the order actually imposing the penalty, is to render R.80 otiose. The Rules must be read together and reading the Rules together, it is clear that there is right of appeal or revision at both stages. The fact that right of appeal or revision has been exercised at the earlier stage in the matter of sanction does not deprive the teacher of his remedy of appeal or revision and does not deprive the statutory authority from exercising appellate or revisional powers at the later stage. I therefore reject the contention that the State Government has no power under R.92 to interfere with the order imposing penalty. 9. The contention that the Government cannot reduce the punishment does not bear scrutiny. R.92 specifically empowers the Government to impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance penalty imposed by the order. Government has also the power to remit the case to the lower authority. Where all the relevant materials are before the Government, Government can certainly exercise power of imposition, setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing penalty. 10. This is a case where Government reduced the penalty under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of R.92 of the Rules. First proviso to sub-rule (1) states that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. First proviso to sub-rule (1) states that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. Proviso (ii) states that if the Government propose to impose any of the penalties specified in items (iv) to (vii) of R.65, that is major penalties, on a case where an inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such orders as they deem fit. 11. On a consideration of this Rule, a Full Bench of this Court in K. P. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (1974 KLT. 714) held that the first proviso only deals with the matter in which the teacher alone is really concerned and can have no relevance if the Government reduce the punishment in which case the person who might be affected would be the manager. To read into this proviso, anything more and to discern from therein an implication that the manager need not be heard when the punishment is reduced by the exercise of the revisional power would be a misinterpretation of the proviso. 12. Subsequent to this decision, the rule was amended by incorporating an explanation to sub-rule (1) and by incorporating sub-rule (2). The explanation states that for the purposes of the proviso and sub-rule (2), the person concerned shall include the Manager of a School whose orders are sought to be revised by the Government. 12. Subsequent to this decision, the rule was amended by incorporating an explanation to sub-rule (1) and by incorporating sub-rule (2). The explanation states that for the purposes of the proviso and sub-rule (2), the person concerned shall include the Manager of a School whose orders are sought to be revised by the Government. Sub-rule (2) states that nothing contained in the proviso to sub-rule (I) shall be deemed to require the Government to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the person concerned and it shall be sufficient if, where the Government propose to revise an order on their own motion, a copy of the grounds on which the order is proposed to be revised, or where the Government propose to revise an order in pursuance of a revision petition filed by a party, a copy of the revision petition is furnished to the person concerned along with a notice requiring him to make representation, if any, in the matter in writing within a period specified in the notice and the Government pass final orders in revision after consideration of such representation. 13. The amended Rule has been considered by a learned single judge of this Court in Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala & Others (1981 KLT. 62). This court held that the effect of sub-rule (2) is that it denies a personal hearing to the person concerned before the revisional authority. At the same time, it insists that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to make his representation in writing. The learned Judge also observed that the rules of natural justice do not insist that in all cases personal hearing must be given. The amendments were therefore held to be valid. 14. Legality of the amendments is not challenged in this case. Argument is that in spite of sub-rule (2), Manager should have been given a hearing. There is no dispute that the Manager was not given hearing. He was only given right to make representation. Parties proceed on the basis that sub-rule (2) is attracted to this case. Sub-rule (2), no doubt, states that the proviso to sub-rule (I) shall not be deemed to require the Government to give opportunity for personal hearing and it shall be sufficient to give opportunity to make representation. 15. He was only given right to make representation. Parties proceed on the basis that sub-rule (2) is attracted to this case. Sub-rule (2), no doubt, states that the proviso to sub-rule (I) shall not be deemed to require the Government to give opportunity for personal hearing and it shall be sufficient to give opportunity to make representation. 15. It is significant to note that the rule does not state that opportunity for personal hearing is not to be given. The rule would only mean that the Government is not required to give opportunity for personal hearing in all cases. However, where serious consequences would follow on the exercise by the Government of its revisional powers, principles of natural justice must be deemed to be applicable and an opportunity for personal bearing be given to the manager. The dictum in Kunju Kunju's case must be read in the context of facts of the case. 16. There has been a long drawn out battle between the parties in this case, commencing from 1980. There have been earlier orders, appeals and revisions. , It was the Government who granted sanction for imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. After the imposition of the penalty, Government itself came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed was excessive. In those circumstances, Manager should have been given an opportunity to point out various aspects of the case which would enable him to sustain the order. In the nature of the complexity of the case, I am of opinion that principles of natural justice necessitated grant of an opportunity for personal bearing. Since such an opportunity has not been extended to the Manager, I am of opinion that the order dated 21-2-1986 cannot stand. In this view, question of issuing direction to enforce the order as sought is OP. 1423/86 does not arise. In the result, order passed by the State Government on 21-2-1986 (Ext. P3 in OP. 1423/86 and Ext. P-10 in OP. 1573/86) is quashed. Revision petition filed by the teacher before the State Government (Ext. P-2 in OP. 1423/86) shall be taken back on file and disposed of afresh by the State Government after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. It shall be done as expeditiously as possible. OP. 1423/86 is dismissed and OP. 1576/1986 is allowed in the above manner.