Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, Petitioner was the Headmaster of K.P.S.P.M. High School, East Kallada. Petitioner was placed under suspension by the first respondent-Manager vide his order No. 41/98 dated?.8.1998, pending disciplinary proceedings, as provided under R.67 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the school with all records and keys to seniormost HSA in the school. Along with the order of suspension, order dated 28.7.1998 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, was also enclosed. We are primarily concerned with the validity of order dated 28.7.1998 issued by the Deputy Director of Education followed by Ext. P15 order dated 12.8.1998 and Ext. R1(c) order dated 13.8.1998. In order to understand the scope of the above mentioned orders, it is necessary to deal with certain facts. 2. Facts reveal that the relationship between the first respondent, and some of the teachers of the School, was not cordial for the last 2 to 3 years. Petitioner refers to the circumstances under which one of the teachers, Smt. P.K. Susan, was suspended by the Manager on 21.9.1995 which arose wide spread resentment among teachers. Newspapers also highlighted various actions taken by the first respondent to suspend the said teacher. By timely intervention of the District Educational Officer, the teacher was subsequently reinstated, with all service benefits. Teachers of the school, including the petitioner, took up the cause of the teacher, and filed various complaints before the authorities and also before the Government. 3. Second respondent was the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam, during the month of January, 1996. Various complaints were raised against the said officer as well for helping the managements to create bogus students strength in different schools. According to petitioner, during the academic year 1994-95, there were 14 class divisions. However the management exerted influence on the second respondent, and got higher level verification done in the school after the statutory period, and got sanctioned 15th class division enabling the manager to appoint a new teacher. Petitioner being the Headmaster objected to the said action. Complaints were raised by various others, which led to the Vigilance Department to conduct a super check under the auspicious of the Joint Director in exercise of the power conferred under R.12-E(3) of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. read with Government order dated 12.11.1997. Petitioner being the Headmaster objected to the said action. Complaints were raised by various others, which led to the Vigilance Department to conduct a super check under the auspicious of the Joint Director in exercise of the power conferred under R.12-E(3) of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R. read with Government order dated 12.11.1997. Joint Director vide his order dated 22.12.1997 found that the second respondent conducted a higher level verification at the instance of the manager with regard to bogus strength of students in various standards, and concluded that the school authorities or the affected parties could not present evidence and make the enquiry reports false. Findings recorded in the enquiry reports and what was revealed from the records that there was fraudulent means on the part of the school authorities in boosting the roll strength of the school in Std. X for 1995-96 which resulted in the sanction of an irregular class division. Accordingly the 15th class division in Std. X of KPSPMHS East Kallada additionally sanctioned by the District Educational Officer, Kollam for 1995-96 was cancelled. 4. According to petitioner, above proceedings persuaded the manager leveling various charges against him. First respondent later forwarded a complaint before the Joint Director on 28.9.1996 raising 44 allegations and charges against the petitioner. Followed by the same, first respondent issued a memo of charges constituting 44 allegations and directing the petitioner to file his explanation. Ext. P8 is the memo of charges received by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted Ext. P9 explanation. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Education issued a memo of charges dated 19.3.1998 to the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him. Ext. P10 is the memo of charges. Petitioner filed Ext. P11 objections. While so, the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam was transferred and in that place the second respondent was appointed in June, 1988. According to petitioner second respondent as well as the manager were inimical towards the petitioner, since petitioner objected to the sanction of 15th class division in Std. X in the School and a vigilance enquiry was held against the second respondent. Counsel submitted the Deputy Director of Education, second respondent, is having animosity towards the petitioner, since the allegations against her were also published in the newspapers. 5. X in the School and a vigilance enquiry was held against the second respondent. Counsel submitted the Deputy Director of Education, second respondent, is having animosity towards the petitioner, since the allegations against her were also published in the newspapers. 5. The second respondent then by notice dated 5.7.1998 incorporating additional 13 charges directed the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Ext. P12is the revised additional memo of charges. Ext. P12 memo of charges referred to the previous enquiry held by the former Deputy Director of Education and District Educational Officer on 20.6.1997. Petitioner then filed a detailed objection to the memo of charges stating that he was unaware of the earlier enquiry conducted. Petitioner stated that eventhough S.12A empowers the Government or Educational Authority to take disciplinary action including suspension against a teacher, no such action was taken against the petitioner following the procedure contemplated in R.75 of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. 6. Eventhough petitioner filed Ext. P13 detailed objection, no enquiry was conducted and he was served with Ext. P14 order by the Manager dated 7.8.1998 enclosing the order dated 28.7.1998 of the second respondent. It is on the basis of the above mentioned order dated 28.7.1998, that the petitioner was placed under suspension. Petitioner came to know of the order of the second respondent dated 28.7.1998 only when the order of suspension dated 7.8.1998 was served on him. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P14 order of suspension was issued at the instigation of the second respondent, and on the basis of order dated 28.7.1998. Counsel submitted that Ext. P14 appears to have been issued by the manager under R.67 of Chapter XIV-A of the KER on the basis of second respondent's order dated 28.7.1998 appears to have been issued under R.67(8) of the Rules. Counsel submitted that Ext. P14 issued at the instigation of second respondent is illegal. Counsel further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have committed a grave error and acted without jurisdiction, and Ext. P14 order dated 7.8.1998 was issued under dictation. He also contended that second respondent has acted mala fide and her action in vitiated by extraneous consideration. Counsel submitted that Ext. P14 issued at the instigation of second respondent is illegal. Counsel further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have committed a grave error and acted without jurisdiction, and Ext. P14 order dated 7.8.1998 was issued under dictation. He also contended that second respondent has acted mala fide and her action in vitiated by extraneous consideration. Counsel also submitted that it is evident from the order dated 28.7.1998 second respondent has without conducting a preliminary investigation entered a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt. Further the order stated that the delinquent Headmaster deserves major punishment, and manager was directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner as contemplated under the Rules. Counsel submitted that before issuing Ext. P14 no effective opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence either oral or documentary. Counsel submitted that even before issuing order dated 28.7.1998 he was not given any notice to appear to give evidence. According to petitioner, the order dated 28.7.1998 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also attacked Ext. P15 and Ext. R1(c) orders issued by the second respondent. In Ext. P15, the second respondent has taken up the stand that there is no need for conducting a further enquiry as contemplated under R.67(8) of the Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. Ext. P15 categorically says that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and petitioner is responsible for all the irregular activities. After entering that finding, the Deputy Director directed the manager to extend the period of suspension beyond 15 days. On the next day, another order was passed by the second respondent, Ext. R1(c) deleting the sentence in Ext. P15 order stating that there is no need for conducting a further enquiry' as contemplated under R.67(8) of Chapter XIVA of the Rules. In Ext. R1(c) the second respondent proceeded as if the manager has issued an order under R.67 and second respondent has issued Ext. R1(c) under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Various allegations raised in the Writ Petition were denied. Counter affidavit proceeds on the basis that Ext. P14 order dated 7.8.1998 is a simple order of suspension, and that the same was confirmed by the second respondent, vide Ext. R1(c) under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Various allegations raised in the Writ Petition were denied. Counter affidavit proceeds on the basis that Ext. P14 order dated 7.8.1998 is a simple order of suspension, and that the same was confirmed by the second respondent, vide Ext. R1(c), thereby extending the period of suspension beyond 15 days. The fact that second respondent extended the period of suspension was communicated by the manager to the petitioner vide Ext. R1(d). First respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the charges would be framed and communicated to the petitioner and request would be made to the second respondent to appoint an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry as per R.7 5 of the Rules. 10. I heard counsel for the petitioner Sri. P. V. Mohanan, Sri. K. Chanrasekharan, senior counsel, appearing for the first respondent, and learned Government Pleader. I am of the view that respondents 1 and 2 have misunderstood various provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, which led to the issue of Exts. P14,P 15 and Rl(c), and also the order dated 7.8.1998 by the manager. Manager has issued order dated 7.8.1998 relying on the second respondent's order dated 28.7.1998. Order dated 28.7.1998 is purported to be issued on the basis of various petitions submitted by manager, as against the petitioner. Second respondent's order also refers to an enquiry conducted by the District Educational Officer, Kollam with regard to allegations raised by the manager against the petitioner. Ext. P14 reveals that second respondent has conclusively found that petitioner is guilty of 13 charges and found that the charges were proved beyond doubt and petitioner deserved major punishment. On reaching the said conclusion, second respondent directed the manager to suspend the petitioner. On the basis of that order dated 28.7.1998, the manager issued Ext. P14. In other words, manager has not exercised his powers independently under R.67 of Chapter XIV-A read with S.12 of the Kerala Education Act, but acted under the dictation of the second respondent. 11. On reaching the said conclusion, second respondent directed the manager to suspend the petitioner. On the basis of that order dated 28.7.1998, the manager issued Ext. P14. In other words, manager has not exercised his powers independently under R.67 of Chapter XIV-A read with S.12 of the Kerala Education Act, but acted under the dictation of the second respondent. 11. S.12(2) of the Act says that no teacher of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed, reduced in rank or suspended by the Manager without the previous sanction of the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, or placed under suspension by the manager for a continuous period exceeding fifteen days without such previous sanction. R.67 of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules enables the manager at any time to place a teacher under suspension when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending for a period of 15 days. R.67(8) also provides no teacher shall be placed under suspension by a manager for a continuous period exceeding 15 days without the previous sanction of the Deputy Director of Education in the case of Headmaster, and Educational Officer in other cases. Therefore, the power under S.12 read with R.67 of Chap. XIV-A has to be exercised by the manager independently, and not on the basis of directions of the Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 28.7.1998. 12. Under S.7 of the Kerala Education Act, any educational agency may appoint any person as the manager of an aided school subject to the approval of such officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. S.11 empowers the manager to effect appointments in the school. S.12 of the Act says 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 this behalf, or placed under suspension by the manager for a continuous period exceeding fifteen days without such previous sanction. Whether a teacher or Headmaster is to be suspended or not is a power to be exercised by the manager himself uninfluenced by the direction of the department. When authority is vested with such power, and if he does not exercise that power, but acts under the direction of another authority before whom appeal or revision will lie, manager is acting under dictation. When authority is vested with such power, and if he does not exercise that power, but acts under the direction of another authority before whom appeal or revision will lie, manager is acting under dictation. It is of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the authorities vested with statutory power should exercise that power unfettered by any extraneous direction or influence. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Maharajs, AIR 1989 SC 997 held that authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others, as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then be not the authorities' discretion, that is exercised, but someone's else. If an authority hands over its discretion to another body, it acts ultra vires. Such interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of power conferred upon the authority. In the instant case the order dated 7.8.1998 itself reveals that petitioner was placed under suspension for 15 days with effect from 7.8.1998 in view of the directions contained in the order dated 28.7.1998 of the second respondent, and therefore, the order of the manager dated 7.8.1998 is illegal, since he has acted under dictation. 13. Second respondent has issued order dated 28.7.1998 relying on various complaints raised by the manager. Apart from complaints by the manager, no other complaint was raised by any other person, and the report relied on by the second respondent was not also made available to the petitioner. The said order is illegal due to various reasons. The fact reveals that second respondent has issued order dated 28.7.1998 without following the provisions of Act and Rules. Under S.12A of the Act, second respondent has to follow the procedure under R.75 of the Rules. None of the procedure laid down in R.75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules has been followed by the second respondent. Apart from the fact that those procedures were not followed, second respondent has also found that all the charges proved beyond doubt and that petitioner deserved major punishment. Even going by R.75, before taking a decision that the petitioner deserves maximum punishment, he should have been given a notice. No such procedure was also followed. Apart from the fact that those procedures were not followed, second respondent has also found that all the charges proved beyond doubt and that petitioner deserved major punishment. Even going by R.75, before taking a decision that the petitioner deserves maximum punishment, he should have been given a notice. No such procedure was also followed. Therefore, if the power has been exercised under S.12A of the Act, the same cannot be sustained for the above mentioned reasons as well. 14. Second respondent himself is uncertain under what provision of law she is acting. She issued Ext. P15 order dated 12.8.1998 in which she states that there is no need for conducting further enquiry under R.67(8) of the Rules and directed first respondent to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days. On the next day another order dated 13.8.1998 was issued deleting certain portion of Ext. P15 order reserving the right of the department to act under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 15. R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules casts an obligation on the manager, if it is a suspension of a teacher, to report the same together with reasons therefore, to the Educational Officer, and if it is the suspension of a Headmaster, to the Deputy Director of Education. Deputy Director of Education thereupon shall make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. On such inspection, if the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for suspension, he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension, and thereupon the teacher shall be forthwith reinstated by the manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days, if necessary. 16. We have to examine whether Exts. P15 and R1(c) will fit in the provisions of R.67 of Chapter XIVA of the Rules and that the second respondent has acted ultra vires. While exercising the power under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A, the educational authorities have to conduct a preliminary investigation only to the extent of finding as IP whether there are any grounds for suspension. P15 and R1(c) will fit in the provisions of R.67 of Chapter XIVA of the Rules and that the second respondent has acted ultra vires. While exercising the power under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A, the educational authorities have to conduct a preliminary investigation only to the extent of finding as IP whether there are any grounds for suspension. If on investigation, authority is satisfied that there is no ground for suspension, he can direct the manager to reinstate the teacher. Otherwise, he can grant permission for suspending the teacher beyond 15 days. Reading Exts. P14, P15 and R1(c) would indicate that the second respondent has found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and deserves major punishment. While exercising power under R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A, the function of the second respondent is only to find out whether a suspension beyond 15 days is justified and nothing more than that. In the case of disciplinary proceedings under R.81A of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. managers are lower or subordinate authorities for the purpose of rules in relation to educational officers. Deputy Director of Education, the Director, the Government or the authority empowered by the Government. Orders passed by the second respondent also casts a fetter on the petitioner to effectively challenge the order of suspension before the educational authorities. R.81 enables a person to file appeal to the next higher authority to whom the authority who accorded sanction is subordinate. When a manager takes a decision to impose any of the penalties, teacher has got a right of appeal before the educational authorities. An authority must exercise power within its limits of the statute, and if it exceeds those limits, the acts will be held to be ultra vires: See Calcutta Ele. Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Calcutta El. Supply Workers Union, AIR 1959 S.C.1191, J.K. Chaudhuri v. R.K. Datta Gupta and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 722; and Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board and others, AIR 1967 SC 295. In the instant case, second respondent has already concluded that the charges against the petitioner are proved beyond doubt and the petitioner deserves major punishment. While issuing Exts. P14,15 and R1(c) the second respondent has exceeded her jurisdiction, and hence acted ultra vires of R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 17. Petitioner has got a contention that the second respondent has acted mala fide with ulterior motive. While issuing Exts. P14,15 and R1(c) the second respondent has exceeded her jurisdiction, and hence acted ultra vires of R.67(8) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. 17. Petitioner has got a contention that the second respondent has acted mala fide with ulterior motive. Eventhough notice was taken out to the second respondent by special messenger, there was no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. No counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent refuting the various allegations. On facts as well as the manner in which Exts. P14, P15 and RI(c) are issued by the second respondent, I am led to believe that the second respondent was not acting bona fide. Various allegations raised against the second respondent were also not refuted. Allegations were also against second respondent in the matter of sanctioning of class divisions to different schools including the school in question. That matter was enquired into and it was found that the order passed by the second respondent was illegal, and the same was reversed. All these facts would show that the second respondent was acting in glove with the management. 18. I am informed that since manager issued order dated 7.8.1998, one Sri. Bhaskaran Unnithan, was put in charge of Headmaster of the School. Since I have found that the manager has issued order dated 7.8.1998 at the dictation of the second respondent, which is evident from the said order itself, the order placing the petitioner under suspension has no legs to stand. Therefore, the same has also to be quashed. 19. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, I quash Exts. P14, P15 and R1(c) as well as the order dated 7.8.1998 issued by the manager. Consequently, there will be a direction to the manager to reinstate the petitioner as Headmaster forthwith. Petitioner would be entitled to get all salary and other benefits as if he was in service. Original Petition is allowed as above. However, I make it clear this order will not stand in the way of the manager acting in accordance with law. It is made clear if the manager proposes to take any action placing the petitioner under suspension beyond 15 days, the second respondent shall not be the authority to pass orders under S.67(8) of the Act, but some other authority notified by the fourth respondent.