Judgment 1. The petitioner is the Principal of the 1st respondent College. He inter alia challenges Ext.P3(a), an order issued by the Management of the College entrusting the duty of "drawing and disbursing officer" to Shri. M.A. Cyriac, Head of Department of Commerce. 2. The factual circumstances involved in the matter will disclose that an inspection was conducted by the Finance (Inspection Wing) of the Higher Education Department in the 1st respondent College and they forwarded a report to the Manager of the College. Ext.P2 is the covering letter which contains the report as well. In the report it is stated that the Principal of the College should be subjected to disciplinary action in order to impose a major penalty on him and that he should be removed from the assignment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer and another senior most responsible Professor having an unblemished character should be authorised to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer till a new Principal assumes charge. On the basis of the report, the Management represented by the Principal informed the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department that the Finance (Inspection Wing) has not sought any explanation from the Principal till date and that the finding of the inspection wing is baseless and unjustifiable. A detailed reply was also given to the report of the Finance (Inspection Wing) based on the records maintained in the College to drop the adverse remarks against the Principal. 3. It seems that by that time on 06/09/2010, the Management issued Ext.P3(a). Ext.P4 is another representation submitted by the petitioner to Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department explaining the illegality of the department in the matter and requested for reviewing the said report and further sought for keeping the order dated 06/09/2010 of the Management in abeyance. 4. Ext.P6 is another communication by Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in which it is indicated that the Principal is eligible for special allowance from 01/03/2010 to 08/09/2010 only as per the letter dated 09/06/2011 which is also under challenge. 5. 4. Ext.P6 is another communication by Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in which it is indicated that the Principal is eligible for special allowance from 01/03/2010 to 08/09/2010 only as per the letter dated 09/06/2011 which is also under challenge. 5. The Government has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the report of the Finance (Inspection Wing) clearly indicated that there are certain irregularities in the manner in which the Principal had functioned as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and in that view of the matter, the management was asked to take necessary disciplinary action against the Principal and further to conduct a detailed inspection in the matter. 6. The main questions that are to be considered in the writ petition are; i) Whether the Government has the power to give a report by way of Ext.P2 without hearing the affected party. ii) Whether the Government has the power to issue Ext.P2 direction to remove the Drawing and Disbursing Officer as per Statute 76 of the Kannur University First Statute and iii) Whether Ext.P3(a) is legally sustainable and (iv) whether the action of the management in not giving special allowance is justifiable. 7. The right of the Government in conducting an inspection cannot be disputed. The question is whether report can be prepared without hearing the Principal who is the affected party. On a perusal of Ext.P2 it can be seen that it is only a preliminary observation made by the Finance (Inspection Wing) and there is a direction to conduct a detailed inspection as well. Prima facie, they had come to certain conclusions which, according to them, require disciplinary action against the Principal and hence they recommended disciplinary action. The disciplinary authority admittedly is the Manager of the College and it is for him to take necessary action in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Statute. In that view of the matter, I do not think that while giving a preliminary report to the management indicating that disciplinary action has to be taken, an opportunity for hearing to the affected party who is the Principal and the Drawing and Disbursing Officer is necessary. He gets an opportunity to explain the factual circumstances or the allegations during the contemplated enquiry. 8. The second question is whether the Government has the power to direct the Management to remove him from the position of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. He gets an opportunity to explain the factual circumstances or the allegations during the contemplated enquiry. 8. The second question is whether the Government has the power to direct the Management to remove him from the position of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Apparently the Government had primarily come to a conclusion that some irregularities have been committed in the matter of disbursing the amounts which were paid by the Government to the College and it requires an enquiry to be conducted. Prima facie, it seems that they proceeded on the basis that an action is to follow for which Ext.P2 report only says that the Principal may be removed from the assignment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer and another senior most responsible Professor having an unblemished character has to be authorised to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Drawing and Disbursing Officer till a new Principal assumes charge. The fact that they have given indication in regard to new Principal assuming charge would further indicate that they have been cautioning the management regarding genuineness of the Principal as Drawing and Disbursing Officer in view of the irregularities which they have noticed. However, it is open for the Management to comply with the directions issued or not to comply with the directions issued, and it will be open for the Government to take necessary action in that regard. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per statute 76, when the Principal of the College is the Drawing Officer unless there is any provision which enables the management to withdraw the right of the Principal from being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, no such power can be exercised. This argument appears to be correct. There is no provision which enables the Principal not to become a Drawing and Disbursing Officer as long as he remains as Principal. The purport of Ext.P2 report appears to have been either to suspend the Principal from service and not to take away his responsibilities as Drawing and Disbursing Officer alone. At any rate, this is a matter which the Management ought to have considered in its proper perspective. Even admittedly, they have not proceeded to conduct any enquiries so far and Ext.P3(a) is only an interim direction while the enquiry process should go on. But apparently the Management had not chosen to conduct any enquiry so far. At any rate, this is a matter which the Management ought to have considered in its proper perspective. Even admittedly, they have not proceeded to conduct any enquiries so far and Ext.P3(a) is only an interim direction while the enquiry process should go on. But apparently the Management had not chosen to conduct any enquiry so far. Therefore Ext.P3(a) has lost its relevance as matters stand now. Even today no steps had been taken by the Management to conduct an enquiry and if they do not conduct an enquiry it is for the Government to take necessary action in that regard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that despite the fact that Finance (Inspection Wing) has directed a further inspection to be carried out by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kannur, no steps had been taken so far. Therefore according to him, the Government is not interested in proceeding with the matter probably on the basis of the explanation offered by the Principal of the College. This being the position, I do not think that there is any necessity to continue with Ext.P3(a) as matters stand now and therefore Ext.P3(a) is liable to be quashed. 11. Ext.P6 is the direction issued by the Government to withdraw the special allowance to the Principal which was payable to him as per UGC scheme. As long as the petitioner remains as Principal of the college, I do not think that there is any justification on the part of the Government to withdraw such a facility. As already indicated, it is for the Management to take any action against the Principal if the Management feels to do so. The petitioner had only taken advantage of that situation. In that regard, this writ petition is only to be allowed. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3(a) and P6 are quashed.