JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner, a Teacher in a Music College, along with another, was placed under suspension on allegations made by three students. They were issued show cause notices and later, memo of charges, essentially charging them with conduct unbecoming of government servants. Allegations, fundamentally, relate to alleged sexual harassment, including invitation of girl students for illicit sexual relationship and also conduct by the teachers totally unfounded, in terms of their office. There is some confusion as to whether the petitioner had been given a memo of charges or whether he was given three memos. 2. On our query, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated, in our view, quite rightly, that the Director of Collegiate Education is the appointing authority to the category in which the petitioner was working. If that were so, it is that authority, which could have initiated disciplinary proceedings. The Director of Collegiate Education had issued only one memo of charges. The Enquiry Officer appears to have communicated it in the form of yet another show cause notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner would say that while the communication from the Principal contains only one allegation, it took a multi-faceted colour, when it came to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. 3. Be that as it may, our focused attention in jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, that too, as against the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, would be confined to the decision as to whether there was any procedural irregularity or illegality resulting in injustice in the process of disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately culminated in the imposition of the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. The Government rendered such decision in consultation with the Kerala PSC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client has also been permanently barred from being involved in the conduct of examinations. We would see it as a protective order for the angle of the interests of the students, rather than a punishment for a teacher. The Government and the Director of Collegiate Education are well within their wisdom to exclude any teacher from being permitted to participate in the process of examination. We would see it as a protective order for the angle of the interests of the students, rather than a punishment for a teacher. The Government and the Director of Collegiate Education are well within their wisdom to exclude any teacher from being permitted to participate in the process of examination. Insofar as the alleged procedural irregularity is concerned, the decision of the Director of Collegiate Education was challenged by the petitioner before the Government in the appeal. The focused plea in the memorandum of appeal before the Government and also at the hearing of the appeal, as is evident from the Government Order issued on the appeal, is that the students belong to a particular student organisation; and as a result of prior animosity generated by the petitioner and others being in the disciplinary authority; the students were bent upon raising false allegations and inculpating the petitioner. The specific case even before the Government was that the students used to go at odd hours from the hostel and that resulted in some disciplinary proceedings, in which the petitioner was involved and that the students were visited with certain measures for such indiscipline. The Government order rightly noticed that even before the Government, the petitioner had no shred of material to sustain that allegation. Essentially therefore, notwithstanding the alleged procedural irregularity, the Appellate Authority, namely, the Government, had given complete and anxious consideration to all the grounds of defence that the petitioner had against the disciplinary proceedings. Not only that, though the petitioner stood to allege that in spite of directions of the writ Court, he was not given access to the files of the Director of Collegiate Education and that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education does not reflect any such opportunity having been given, the Government had called for and looked into the files of the Director of Collegiate Education and were satisfied that opportunity for access to the files was afforded by the Director of Collegiate Education. In this factual matrix, we do not find that the Tribunal erred in law or on counts of jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner's application under the Administrative Tribunal Act, thereby refusing to interfere either with procedure, and the findings, or with the penalty imposed. We do not find any ground to exercise authority under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any ground to exercise authority under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. This original petition fails. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed in limine. Dismissed.