1. The petitioner is the Principal of St. Stephen's Higher Secondary School, Keerampara, an aided school. She has been placed under suspension by the first respondent - Manager of the school on 28th June 2003. The Manager had forwarded an intimation to the Director of Higher Secondary Education (2nd respondent herein) as required by law. Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam (3rd respondent) held a formal enquiry in the matter and had forwarded a report to the second respondent. Acting in the light of the, report, the second respondent had required the first respondent - Manager to revoke the suspension and to reinstate the Principal forthwith. Three days time had been granted from the date of receipt of the letter. This is Ext. P-1 dated 2nd September 2003. Report of the Deputy Director dated 28th July 2003 33 referred to therein. The writ petition had been filed on 29th September 2003 complaining that the order was yet to be complied with. The prayer, inter alia, is that this Court should intervene in the matter to see that the Manager complies with the orders. According to the petitioner, Ext. P-1 had not been subjected to any challenge, as far as she knew when the Writ Petition was filed. 2. A counter - affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 3. I had heard Sri P. V. Baby for the petitioner, Sri K.R.B. Kaimal for the first respondent. Government Pleader represented the Education Department. 4. With reference to the counter - affidavit filed, the first respondent has argued that the petitioner had been placed under suspension in view of very grave charges, and eleven items of misconduct were there including misappropriation of funds. A copy of the charge sheet is produced as Ext. R-1(a). It is revealed that Ext. P-1 had been subjected to challenge by filing an application for review before the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext. R-1(b). The Manager had also moved this Court in the matter. By Ext. R-1(c) Judgment, W. P. (C) No. 30139 of 2003 so filed, had been disposed of recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the said review petition pending with the Government will be disposed of expeditiously after notice to the parties. R-1(b). The Manager had also moved this Court in the matter. By Ext. R-1(c) Judgment, W. P. (C) No. 30139 of 2003 so filed, had been disposed of recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the said review petition pending with the Government will be disposed of expeditiously after notice to the parties. A further appeal also has been filed by the Manager, as Writ Appeal No. 1913 of 2003, and it is yet to be considered on merits. 5. The gist of the submission of the Counsel for the first respondent, on merits, is that the petitioner could not have invoked the remedy of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 at all and she had been proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. It would have been against the interest of the institution to readmit her for duty. An enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry is going on and within a period of one month the position will be clear as to whether the petitioner is guilty of any of the allegations levelled against as per Ext. R-1(a). 6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on a misconception of facts, and law. It was not possible for her to rely on Chap.14of the Kerala Education Rules or press for reliefs as if the said provision had application. Sri Kaimal submits that being a higher secondary school the stipulations or procedural formalities as contained in Chap.14 were not applicable to them, especially in the matter of disciplinary action against the teachers. Counsel submits that the jurisdictional areas of the Director as also the Deputy Director are well defined and such officers have not been conferred with any powers of superintendence over the right of the Manager to proceed against a teacher. The submission is that only in respect of teacher of a primary or secondary school the officers could have jurisdiction to oversee the disciplinary action taken by the Manager as coming under Chap.14 and therefore it would not have been possible for them to contend that there was any legal right for getting Ext. P-1 enforced by a writ petition. The submission is that only in respect of teacher of a primary or secondary school the officers could have jurisdiction to oversee the disciplinary action taken by the Manager as coming under Chap.14 and therefore it would not have been possible for them to contend that there was any legal right for getting Ext. P-1 enforced by a writ petition. The explanatory not to the notification dated 9th November 2001, whereby a new chapter as Chap.32 was introduced to K.E.R. makes it clear that existing provision does not apply to Higher Secondary School teachers In other words, the submission is that the recourse of the petitioner if at all would have been on the basis of the provisions contained in Chap.3 of the Kerala Education Rules, if according to her, the Manager was in error. 7. Action against the Managers of educational agencies in the event of mismanagement, etc., are referred to in Chapter III, R.7 of K. E. R. Thus, the argument is that there is no right for the petitioner to enforce an order through a writ petition. 8. Detailed proceedings to be followed when disciplinary action is proposed against a teacher are incorporated in R.67, Chap.14 K.E.R. The petitioner, as also the learned Government Pleader submit that the said provision has no application as far as the Higher Secondary Section of an aided school. However, I find in difficult no accept the arguments as presented, and leave the petitioner listless and to her tools, because it would be forgetting the basic duties and functions of an educational agency. A Manager has to conduct himself with reference to the four corners of the statute, and functionally he has no independent to arrange the affairs at his likes. Provisions are there curbing his rights. In this context, reference could be made to S.12 of the Kerala Education Act. The statute deals generally with the conditions of services, as may be prescribed by the Government. By S.12(2), it is provided 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 this behalf. Nor can a teacher be placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period exceeding fifteen days without previous sanction. By S.12(2), it is provided 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 this behalf. Nor can a teacher be placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period exceeding fifteen days without previous sanction. When the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, he might have been aware of the above, as the reporting of the incident to the Director is sufficient to indicate that this duty was very much in his mind to be complied with. The section, as above, and violation thereof cannot be treated as of no substance , whatever. Even though detailed procedures prescribed by R.67 are not applicable to the case at hand, it has to be presumed that such report to the Director was to ensure that there was no arbitrariness involved. After the fact finding preliminary enquiry that had been held by the Deputy Director, Ext. P-1 report came to be prepared. The report was against the interest of the Manager. On 12th September 2003, Revision had been filed. Evidently, the Manager is resorting to the statutory and constitutional remedies, and he is well within his rights. 9. As Ext. P-1 was inconveniencing, notwithstanding Revision Petition, a Writ Petition was also filed. It cannot be forgotten that while disposing of the writ petition this Court had observed that the direction to the Government to decide the review application could not be understood as a circumstance that Ext. P-1 order was to be treated as inoperative during the above said period. Precisely, this might have been the re son which prompted the first respondent to file an appeal against the judgment in W. P. (G) No. 30139 of 2003. Thus, even though a bold face is shown by the Manager, in fact, he is conscious of his duty that so long as Ext. P-1 is not stayed, he has to obey the direction. 10. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether there is substance in the argument that full discretion is left with him to comply or not to comply with the directions. In spite of Ext. P-1, perhaps the Manager is convinced that the Director of Public Instructions had committed a mistake in ordering reinstatement of the Principal. 10. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether there is substance in the argument that full discretion is left with him to comply or not to comply with the directions. In spite of Ext. P-1, perhaps the Manager is convinced that the Director of Public Instructions had committed a mistake in ordering reinstatement of the Principal. Of course, the Manager can assert that Principal is answerable for the grave allegations; but is such a satisfaction sufficient enough for him to flout the orders of the competent authority? 11. Considering the hierarchy of authority and also noticing that the Manager is discharging statutory duties, I feel that it may not be possible for him to ignore such orders passed. He had adopted the right course of subjecting the inconveniencing orders to challenge by legally recognised means. Of course there is a submission that a copy of the report of the Deputy Director, referred to in Ext. P-1, has not been made available to the Manager for him to know of the reasons why such orders have been passed. But that cannot be an objection which could be raised at this point of time. 12. At this juncture, we may also examine the restrictions that are imposed by S.12 of the Kerala Education Act and Rules on a Manager. He can suspend a teacher initially for 15 days. But, previous sanction is mandatorily required for continuing the period of suspension exceeding such period. The Director becomes the master of situations. Though the Manager is the appointing authority, vis - a - vis the Principal, the Government has the liability to pay salary for a teacher. In exercise of powers when the authorised officer finds that there is no justification for suspension, even though it may be unpalatable for the Manager to obey the order, he has no other option. A repeat order has also been issued on 28th October 2003. The discretion of a Manager to proceed according to bis wish is subjected to scrutiny by a dispassionate authority, even though the conviction of the Manager may be bona fide that the Principal has committed grievous lapses. The section speaks of previous permission for continued suspension. Rule of law requires that he has to surrender to the authority of the department. The section speaks of previous permission for continued suspension. Rule of law requires that he has to surrender to the authority of the department. Therefore, it may not be possible for this Court to hold that the remedy of the aggrieved person is to bang his head at the doors of Educational Authorities. 13. Under sub-rule (4) of R.7, Chap.3, there is classification of lapses as serious and not serious. Under sub clause (c), suspension of teachers, and keeping them out of service beyond fifteen days; disobeying the orders of reinstatement of such incumbents after a preliminary investigation etc., are noticed as serious omissions. The Manager is responsible for the conduct of the school strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. He shall also abide by the orders that may be issued from time to time by the Government and the department, in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules, as mandated by Chap.3, R.9. If there is refusal to obey such orders it will be therefore justified on the part of this Court to compel the Manager to adopt a course so as to see that legal orders are appropriately implemented, as he is recognised as a statutory authority. 14. We may take another example. If the argument of the first respondent is accepted, it may lead to serious break down of administration. In this case, the first respondent had informed the Director that he had suspended the petitioner. There can be a case, where no such information is given over at all. If we go by the argument of first respondent, then also, the affected person will have no remedy, he will have to stand outside, and hope that the Department may take action at their pleasure. Therefore, I am of the view that no Manager should go with the feeling that he can flout departmental orders, and when there is an irregularity or violation of orders, it would be proper for this Court to correct him. 15. The Petitioner is aged 54, had a good record of service, and has suddenly been brought to the eye of the storm. If she is guilty, of course, disciplinary action is to be taken. 15. The Petitioner is aged 54, had a good record of service, and has suddenly been brought to the eye of the storm. If she is guilty, of course, disciplinary action is to be taken. But, when law prescribes that after the initial period of suspension, for keeping a person under suspension previous departmental sanction is required, here is a case, where she is continuing outside, even after five months. Even Ext. P-1 order was belated, for reasons unknown. 16. The learned Counsel for the first respondent of course submitted that enquiry proceedings are going on and it is expected that the Government will see reasons and the review petition is likely to be decided in their favour. But, this is not relevant as of now. Also, while disposing of the earlier writ petition, this Court had held in Ext. R.-1(c) Judgment that the proceedings issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education are not to be considered as made inoperative for the only reason that the review petition was directed to be disposed of by the Government. These facts do indicate that no fetters are there for enforcing the order, and the first respondent is not justified in enforcing his will. 17. Consequently, there will be a direction to the first respondent to see that Ext. P-1 order is implemented forthwith, and in any case, within ten days from today. The Original Petition will stand allowed.