Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.650/A1/2014 dated 09.05.2014 whereby the petitioner was relieved from the post of Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Palukal, Kanyakumari District. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner was initially appointed as P.G.Assistant on 29.11.1980 and thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School on 27.07.2006. On 09.05.2014, the impugned order came to be passed by the third respondent for the reason that the School secured only 78.90% in the Higher Secondary Examination for the year 2013-14. The said impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice. Even on merits, during the tenure of period as Headmaster he made pass percentage and the School achieved by more than 90% results in the Higher Secondary Examination. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent wherein, it is stated that the relieving of the petitioner from the post of Headmaster is not a punitive action and also not a disciplinary action requiring compliance of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to instruct the weaker students to attend the special classes conducted by the third respondent after half-yearly examination and he failed to conduct classes properly and cover the entire syllabus to get best results. Thus, the reduction in pass percentage is said to be the reason to pass the impugned order. 4. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of relieving the petitioner from the post of Headmaster is unknown to the service jurisprudence, since the order does not say as to what would be the consequence of such order relieving the petitioner. 5. Apart from that, he submitted that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing of such order and therefore, the order reliving him from the post of Headmaster being a punitive nature, cannot be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to him and consequently, it violates the principles of natural justice. 6. Even on merits, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only increased the pass percentage during the tenure and had there been a proper opportunity, he would have satisfied the authorities. 6. Even on merits, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only increased the pass percentage during the tenure and had there been a proper opportunity, he would have satisfied the authorities. Even assuming that such reason stated by the third respondent is true, such action cannot be construed as a misconduct as held by this Court in P.Shaheen and others -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9 and others reported in 2014 (5) CTC 444 . 7. He further pointed out that the impugned order came to be passed solely on the instructions given by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, which is evident from the impugned order itself. Thus, he submitted that the District Collector, Kanyakumari, is not a competent authority to take any action against the petitioner as such power is vested only with the authorities of the Education Department. Therefore, based on such instruction or a direction given by the District Collector, passing of the impugned order by the third respondent is totally illegal. 8. In support of such contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India(ALPAI) and others -vs- Director General of Civil Aviation and others reported in 2011 (5) SCC 435 . 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the reduction in pass percentage causes serious prejudice to the Education Department and therefore, the impugned order has rightly been issued and hence, this Court need not interfere with the same. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The petitioner was working as Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School. Through the impugned order, he was relieved from the said post for the reason that there was a reduction in pass percentage of the +2 students in the academic year 2013-2014. The pass percentage referred to in the impugned order is 78.90, which according to the third respondent, is very low and therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is responsible for such reduction of pass percentage. 12. Admittedly, before passing such an order, the petitioner was not put on notice. The pass percentage referred to in the impugned order is 78.90, which according to the third respondent, is very low and therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is responsible for such reduction of pass percentage. 12. Admittedly, before passing such an order, the petitioner was not put on notice. Even though a stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the impugned order is not a punitive action or disciplinary action warranting compliance of natural justice, this Court is not in a position to accept the said contention for the simple reason that relieving of person from ah post which he is holding earlier, that too, in this case from the post of Headmaster, based on an allegation, has to be construed only as a punitive or disciplinary action. 13. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order would show that based on the allegations made against the petitioner, namely, reduction in pass percentage, he was relieved from the post. Therefore, when an allegation is made and consequently, the impugned order relieving him from the post of Headmaster is also passed based on such allegation, it cannot be said that such order is not a punishment or an order resulting out of a disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, such order passed without following the principles of natural justice cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. 14. On this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, the reasons stated in the impugned order being the reduction in pass percentage cannot be construed as misconduct as already found by this Court in a decision in P.Shaheen and others -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9 and others reported in 2014 (5) CTC 444 , at paragraphs 11, 14 and 19 are as follows: "11. The above Judgments are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Even if an Employee is found wanting in ability or negligent, the same would not amount ot "misconduct". 14. Similarly, a person academically sound may not have administrative capacities. It is for the Management to come out with remedial measures after discussions with the teachers, parents and the students. There is no discussion in the charge memo as to why the explanation submitted by the Petitioner should not be accepted. 14. Similarly, a person academically sound may not have administrative capacities. It is for the Management to come out with remedial measures after discussions with the teachers, parents and the students. There is no discussion in the charge memo as to why the explanation submitted by the Petitioner should not be accepted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have done no wrong making them unbecoming members of the service and failure in devotion to duty. Similarly, failure in task assigned by itself would not constitute a misconduct. Only if the failure is due to ill motive, it would constitute a misconduct. No such allegations are made against the petitioners. The reasons for such failure as evident are the non-cooperation from the students. As this Court has already held that the petitioners cannot be blamed for poor pass percentage, the third charge is vague and baseless. 19. The job of a Teacher is not mean. He not only contributes academically, but on the whole to the Society and the country by producing high quality students. But all this is possible, only if the student is interested and willing to co-operate. If unnecessarily, the teachers are harassed by instituting charges against them, as in this case, the same would cause remorse and discourage not only the petitioners but also others from taking up the job." 15. Considering the above said decisions of this Court, this Court is of the view that the reasons stated in the impugned order also cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground as well. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that apart from the above two reasons, the impugned order came to be passed based on the directions issued by the District Collector, who is not having any competency to deal with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 17. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it has referred to the instruction or direction given by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, during an inspection. 17. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it has referred to the instruction or direction given by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, during an inspection. It is not in dispute that as against a teacher working in the educational institutions, more particularly, the institutions run by the Government, the educational authorities appointed by the Government to administer the institutions or the competent authorities and therefore, they have to act on their own and if any disciplinary proceedings are to be taken against the erring teachers, they cannot be directed or advised on by an authority who is not having any jurisdiction to do so, even assuming such authorities are superior in nature. 18. At this juncture, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India(ALPAI) and others -vs- Director General of Civil Aviation and others reported in 2011 (5) SCC 435 is relevant to be quoted, wherein in paragraphs 26 and 27, it has been held as follows: "26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29.05.2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, violation and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co Ltd., -vs- Cane Commr. of Bihar, Chandrika Jha -vs- State of Bihar, Tarlochan Dev Sharma -vs- State of Punjab and Manohar Lal -vs- Ugrasen). 27. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co Ltd., -vs- Cane Commr. of Bihar, Chandrika Jha -vs- State of Bihar, Tarlochan Dev Sharma -vs- State of Punjab and Manohar Lal -vs- Ugrasen). 27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr.of Police -vs- Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil -v- Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham Chand -v- State of H.P. observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statue does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme." 19. Considering the above stated facts and circumstance and by following the decisions referred to supra, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.