Judgment 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher by the fourth respondent Manager with effect from 13.6.2007. He was placed under suspension by the fourth respondent Manager as per order dated 27.3.2009 for a period of 15 days. After preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension, the Assistant Educational Officer, Tanur held that there are no grounds to place him under suspension. By Ext.P2 order dated 15.4.2009, the Assistant Educational Officer cancelled the order of suspension. The fourth respondent Manager carried the matter in revision before the State Government. By Ext.P3 order passed on 26.9.2009, the Government set aside the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and directed the Assistant Educational Officer to hold a detailed enquiry under rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 2. In the meanwhile, a memo of charges and a statement of allegations dated 29.2.2009 had been served on the petitioner to which he submitted a written statement of defense dated 6.4.2009. The Manager thereafter requested the Assistant Educational Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry under rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. After the Government issued Ext.P3 order directing a formal enquiry to be held, the Assistant Educational Officer conducted an enquiry on 5.11.2009 and submitted Ext.P6 report wherein he held as follows: "The matter was examined in detail. The arguments of the manager to take disciplinary action against Sri. Noushad are seen sustained. Sri. Noushad is unable to defend himself up on the allegations levelled against him. During the enquiry, upon the questions towards him, Sri. Noushad's answers were contradictions throughout. It is noted that he often failed to concentrate in what he had to say. As there is a serious allegation that he is a suspected Psychic personality, his manner of presentation cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, the disciplinary action initiated by the manager against Sri. Noushad for the academic interest of the pupils as well as of the school, seems valid and justifiable." 3. The fourth respondent Manager thereafter issued a notice dated 16.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of removal from service with effect from 1.1.2008, should not be imposed on him. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply dated 4.12.2009. The fourth respondent Manager thereafter issued a notice dated 16.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of removal from service with effect from 1.1.2008, should not be imposed on him. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply dated 4.12.2009. The fourth respondent Manager thereafter sent a letter dated 18.12.2009 to the District Educational Officer, Malappuram requesting for previous sanction to impose the punishment of removal from service. By order passed on 18.1.2010, the District Educational Officer granted prior permission to impose the punishment of removal from service. The fourth respondent Manager thereupon issued Ext.P4 order dated 19.2.2010 removing the petitioner from service with effect from 1.1.2008, the date on which according to the Manager, he was unauthorizedly absent from service. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 19.2.2010 removing him from service, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram under rule 80 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. By Ext.P7 passed on 17.5.2011, the Deputy Director of Education held that the charge that the petitioner is a psychic person has not been proved. He however gave an opportunity to the petitioner to produce a medical certificate to prove that he is not a psychic person. He also directed that if found fit, the petitioner should be appointed in the next arising vacancy as there is no vacancy at present in the school. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision petition before the State Government. The Government considered the revision petition and passed Ext.P14 order dated 8.11.2012 whereby the Government directed the Assistant Educational Officer, Tanur to terminate the probation of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision petition before the State Government. The Government considered the revision petition and passed Ext.P14 order dated 8.11.2012 whereby the Government directed the Assistant Educational Officer, Tanur to terminate the probation of the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4, P6, P7, P12 and P14 seeks the following reliefs: "(a) issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exts.P3, P4, P6, P7, P12 and P14; (b) declare that the whole disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under the guise of disciplinary action is vitiated due to gross arbitrariness, illegalities, colourable exercise of power and violation of Rules; (c) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages for the period he was kept outside illegality forthwith; (d) declare that the approval and appointment of the 6th respondent, in the vacancy of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable; (e) issue a writ order or direction directing the competent authority to take appropriate disciplinary action against the 7th respondent who passed Ext.P14 order without following the requirement of an institutitonal hearing and who passed the said order succumbing to political pressure." The principal contention raised in the writ petition is that the enquiry held by the Assistant Educational Officer on 5.11.2009 pursuant to which Ext.P6 report was submitted, was not in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. 5. Though the fourth respondent Manager has been served, he has not chosen to enter appearnace. The sixth respondent, the teacher appointed in the place of the petitioner has also not entered appearance though she has been served. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.2.2013, the learned Government Pleader made available the files leading to Ext.P5. The files as well as Ext.P6 report disclose that the enquiry held on 5.11.2009 was only a perfunctory enquiry. The enquiry officer has in paragraph 2 of Ext.P6 report stated that he conducted an enquiry on 5.11.2009 at the school and that the petitioner, the Headmaster of the school and the authorised representative of the Manager were present. He has also stated that in the enquiry some of the teachers of the school namely Sri. Unnikrishnan, Dulkith, Savad, Smt. Saraladevi, Radhamani Amma, K.K. Fathima, M.P. Bushra, A.K. Raseena and Sreeja V.K. were heard. He has also stated that in the enquiry some of the teachers of the school namely Sri. Unnikrishnan, Dulkith, Savad, Smt. Saraladevi, Radhamani Amma, K.K. Fathima, M.P. Bushra, A.K. Raseena and Sreeja V.K. were heard. From a reading of Ext.P6 report it is evident that no witness was examined in the enquiry in support of the charges levelled aginst the petitioner. From a reading of Ext.P6 report it is evident that what was held on 5.11.2009 was a hearing in which, besides the petitioner, the Headmaster of the school, the Manager of the school and a few among the teachers were heard. From a reading of Ext.P6 report I am satisfied that the enquiry stated to have been held on 5.11.2009 was not an enquiry as contemplated in rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. 6. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Seetharam Upper Primary School v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (2) KLT 338 ] held that an enquiry under rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules has to be in accordance with the procedure laid down in the manual for disciplinary proceedings, governing Government employees. In the instant case, it is evident from Ext.P6 report that such an enquiry was not held. The Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram had while disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner from the order imposing punishment held that the finding arrived at by the Assistant Educational Officer in Ext.P6 report that the petitioner is a psychic personality has not been proved by medical evidence. He however directed the petitioner to prove that he does not suffer from any psychic problems. The Government also proceeded on that basis when it directed the petitioner to produce a certificate from the authorised medical board to the effect that he is not suffering from any psychic disorder. That apart, the revision petition filed before the Government evidenced by Ext.P8 was from that part of Ext.P7 order whereby the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram directed that the petitioner should be given appointment in the next arising vacancy. On that revision petition, the Government directed cancellation of his probation on the ground that his probation has not been declared, without calling upon him to show cause why his probation should not be terminated. On that revision petition, the Government directed cancellation of his probation on the ground that his probation has not been declared, without calling upon him to show cause why his probation should not be terminated. Therefore for that reason also, I am of the opinion that impugned orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Exts.P3, P4, P6, P7, P12 and P14 orders and direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits. It will be open to the disciplinary authority if he so choses to proceed afresh in accordance with law.