JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P12 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Manager of MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu and AM LP School, Parambil. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent. 3. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Muhammed Abdurahman Memorial Higher Elementary School Committee, has been appointed as Manager of the MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu by virtue of his office as Secretary. It is stated that he was elected as Secretary on 01.08.1997 and his appointment as Manager of the MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu was approved by the 4th respondent by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 16.10.1997. It is stated that the Committee later acquired another School i.e. AM LP School, Parambil and the prior permission for acquisition was accorded by Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.01.2008. Later, the petitioner was accorded approval as Manager of the said School also by Ext.P4 order of the 4th respondent dated 08.02.2008. It is submitted that the combined staff list of both the Schools was published by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Headmaster of the MAM UP School had approached this Court with regard to transfer from one School to another and Exts.P6 and P7 proceedings came to be issued treating both the Schools as a single unit. It is stated that, in the meanwhile, the additional 5th respondent had submitted a complaint dated 20.06.2018 against the functioning of the petitioner as the Manager of the School. Based on the complaint, it is stated that an enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent and a report was submitted to the 3rd respondent without notice to the petitioner. A copy of the report was, thereafter, forwarded to the petitioner with Ext.P8 covering letter dated 23.02.2019. A hearing notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2019. The hearing notice refers to the taking over of the Management of the Parambilkadavu MAM UP School. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted objections and had also submitted a detailed hearing note at the time of the hearing, which was ultimately conducted on 04.01.2020. A hearing notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2019. The hearing notice refers to the taking over of the Management of the Parambilkadavu MAM UP School. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted objections and had also submitted a detailed hearing note at the time of the hearing, which was ultimately conducted on 04.01.2020. Ext.P10 is the hearing note. It is submitted that Ext.P11 consent letter issued by the members of the Committee had also been produced before the 3rd respondent, who had conducted the hearing. However, by Ext.P12 order dated 22.01.2020 relying on the complaint of the 5th respondent as well as another undisclosed complaint submitted by the President of the Kuruvattoor Grama Panchayath and the report of the 4th respondent as well as an endorsement by the Educational Minister, steps have now been taken to disqualify the petitioner relying on Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action is completely vitiated in so far as the petitioner has not been put on notice of any action proposed under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the complaint of the 5th respondent or the complaint allegedly submitted by the President of the Panchayath or any of the materials, which were relied on as against him. It is further submitted that a reading of Ext.P12 would go to show that the allegations found to be substantiated against the petitioner do not fall within any of the enumerated items of the misconduct, negligence, disobedience etc as are provided in Rule 7 of Chapter III and without any such allegations as against the petitioner, the action in terms of Rule 7, Chapter III was completely unjustified and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been given a proper notice of any of the allegations in terms of Rule 7, the petitioner would have been able to substantiate that such allegations are completely unjustified. It is submitted that the action taken on the basis of Ext.P9 hearing notice, which is not a show cause notice as contemplated in Rule 7, is totally without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 09.07.2014 in W.P(C) No.2761 of 2014. It is submitted that the action taken on the basis of Ext.P9 hearing notice, which is not a show cause notice as contemplated in Rule 7, is totally without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 09.07.2014 in W.P(C) No.2761 of 2014. It is held, therein, that the disqualification contemplated in Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER is the disqualification of the Manager and not the educational agency. It was held that such a disqualification without serving a proper show cause notice on the Manager enumerating the grounds of such disqualification and considering his objections to the same is completely illegal and unjustified. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the educational authorities in having appointed the AEO as the temporary Manger ignoring the specific provisions of Rule 7 by which the educational agency has to be given an opportunity for appointing a suitable person as the Manager is also completely without any justification. 5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3rd respondent. It is stated, therein, that a complaint had been preferred by the additional 5th respondent on 20.06.2018 and on the basis of the said complaint, the 4th respondent has conducted an enquiry and it was found that students strength was continuously declining for consecutive academic years and that the petitioner had made structural changes in the Pre-KER building without higher sanction from the Department. It was further found that the educational agency had acquired another School and that the schools were to be treated as two separate units. It is stated that a hearing was conducted and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to state his case on 04.01.2020. It is further stated that that the petitioner was continuing as Manager from 01.08.1997 onwards without conduct of the General Body and that the said action is irregular. It is stated that Ext.P12 order was passed after considering all the contentions of all the parties and is, therefore, perfectly in accordance with law. 6. A counter affidavit has also been placed on record by the additional 5th respondent. It is contended that the 5th respondent is a member of the Managing Committee and that elections are not being conducted in due time. 6. A counter affidavit has also been placed on record by the additional 5th respondent. It is contended that the 5th respondent is a member of the Managing Committee and that elections are not being conducted in due time. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing as Secretary of the Committee and Manager of the School without approval from the General Body for the past five years and that there are serious allegations with regard to the conduct of the petitioner as Manager of the School. It is submitted that the 5th respondent had submitted Ext.R5(a) complaint before the Educational Authority narrating his grievances and that on his complaint, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent and hearing was conducted on 15.09.2018 and an order was issued on 23.02.2019. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent had received a notice from the Deputy Director of Education dated 05.12.2019 for personal hearing on 04.01.2020 and that the 5th respondent had submitted a detailed statement before the Deputy Director of Education. It is stated that the petitioner had also been permitted to file his argument notes and it was only thereafter that Ext.P12 order is passed. It is stated that the decision of this Court in Leslia Biveria vs. State of Kerala ( 2007 (4) KLT 486 ) has considered the issue and has held that malpractice, corruption or maladministration are grounds on which a manager can be declared unfit to hold office and that power to disqualify a person permanently includes the power to disqualify for a temporary periods also. It is, therefore, contended that the action of the DDE in having appointed the AEO as a temporary manager was perfectly valid and legal. 7. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had been continuing as Manager of the School on the basis of the specific authorisation by the Committee. It is further submitted that the issue of treating the Schools as separate units has been considered by the Government and a Government order had been issued on 18.08.2017, which is binding on the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner had been continuing as Manager of the School on the basis of the specific authorisation by the Committee. It is further submitted that the issue of treating the Schools as separate units has been considered by the Government and a Government order had been issued on 18.08.2017, which is binding on the respondents. It is stated that orders have been issued by the department and the Government with regard to the permission for carrying out the modifications in the Schools and that the allegations on that ground are also factually incorrect. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides. Ext.P9 is admittedly the notice issued to the petitioner based on which the hearing was conducted and on which Ext.P12 order is passed. The subject of Ext.P9 is the taking over of the MAM UP School, Parambilkadavu. Ext. P9 contains no details of any of the allegations against the petitioner. It also does not refer to any action proposed in terms of Rule 7, Chapter III, KER. In Ext.P10, the petitioner has specifically raised contentions with regard to the authority on which he has continued as Secretary of the Committee and therefore, as the Manager of the School. Ext.P11 letter of consent issued by the members of the Committee has also been produced by the petitioner. By Ext.P12, it appears that apart from the complaint preferred by the 5th respondent based on which Ext.P8 enquiry report had been generated, complaints of the President of the Panchayath have also been referred. Ext.P12 enumerates six irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. On the basis of the said irregularities, the 3rd respondent has found the petitioner unfit to hold the office of Manager of the School or of any other School and has directed the AEO to function as the Manager of the School. However, a reading of Ext.P12 and the irregularities which are enumerated therein would go to show that the said alleged irregularities do not come within the purview of Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. 9. Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER reads as follows:- “7. Action against Manager or Educational Agency in the event of mismanagement etc. However, a reading of Ext.P12 and the irregularities which are enumerated therein would go to show that the said alleged irregularities do not come within the purview of Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. 9. Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER reads as follows:- “7. Action against Manager or Educational Agency in the event of mismanagement etc. – (1) In the event of mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of Departmental instruction on the part of the Manager [or denial of appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier or denial of promotion to a teacher who is rightful claimant for promotion by the manager] [or conviction of the Manager for an offence involving moral turpitude] it shall be open to the Director, after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and after due enquiry, to declare him unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school or in any other aided school and to require the educational Agency to appoint a suitable person as Manager. Note - The enquiry mentioned in this sub-rule shall not be necessary in the case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude by a court of law. (2) Failure on the part of the Manager or the Educational Agency to obey the instructions issued by the Department in regard to the school matters and the continuance in office of a person declared unfit shall be deemed to be sufficient causes for taking steps for the withdrawal of aid, grant and/or recognition of the institution concerned and also for the withdrawal of the permission granted for establishment of the same. (3) In the case of Managers who have failed to provide their Schools with minimum essential facilities as specified under rules 9 and 10 of Chapter IV. It shall be lawful for Government to provide minimum essential facilities in such schools, after giving due notice to the Managers concerned and to recover the expenditure incurred therefor by Government from the Managers either by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as an arrear of land revenue or by deduction from the maintenance grant sanctioned to the Managers under rule 5 of Chapter XXVIII. (4) In the case of a Manager who commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to teachers/Government, the loss sustained by teachers/Government shall be recoverable from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land, in the following cases namely- (a) Denial of appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has rightful claim for re-appointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier under rule 51 A Chapter XIV A. (b) Denial of promotion to a teacher to any higher grade of pay under rules 43, 43B or 43C, as the case may be, of Chapter XIVA, or denial of promotion to the senior- most rightful claimant to the post of Headmaster under rules 44 or 45 or 45 A, as the case may be, of Chapter XIV- A, when the post becomes vacant disobeying the directions from the department and/or Government, causing denial of all monetary benefits which he/she would have got had the promotion been effected as per rules in time. (c) Suspension of teachers, framing cooked up and/or frivolous charges, keeping them out of service beyond fifteen days disobeying the orders of re-instatement of such incumbents passed by the Deputy Director (Education) or by the Educational officer concerned, as the case may be, after a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension under sub-rule (8) of rule 67, Chapter XIV-A, depriving such incumbents of their salary for which they would have been entitled to had they been reinstated by the Manager in compliance of the orders issued by the officer concerned. (d) Making of irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Educational Officers concerned by furnishing false information/ declaration by the Managers regarding the claimants, under rule 51 A. Chapter XIV A. (5) After having effected such recovery the amount of loss sustained by the teacher concerned shall be paid to him, if not already paid.” 10. The scope of Rule 7 of Chapter III is, therefore, clearly with regard to malpractice, corruption or maladministration, negligence of duty, disobedience, denial of appointment, offences involving moral turpitude etc as also the enumerated misconducts as provided in the Rule. The scope of Rule 7 of Chapter III is, therefore, clearly with regard to malpractice, corruption or maladministration, negligence of duty, disobedience, denial of appointment, offences involving moral turpitude etc as also the enumerated misconducts as provided in the Rule. In the instance case, I find from the materials on record that the petitioner had not been put on notice specifically of any action against him in terms of Chapter III Rule 7 of KER. The consequence of an action of disqualification under Rule 7 being grave in nature, I am of the opinion that a specific notice pointing out the instances for disqualification of a Manager in terms of Rule 7 is a pre requisite before any action can be taken against the Manager. The requirement of the show cause notice under the Rule 7 and an enquiry pursuant thereto can be given a go by only in a case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The finding in Ext.P12 to the effect that the petitioner is disqualified to be Manager of the School or of any other School under Rule 7 of Chapter III, KER is unsustainable in view of the fact that the finding was not preceded by a proper notice as contemplated by the Rule. Even in case there are complaints against the petitioner, it is imperative that the petitioner should be put on notice of the specific complaints raised against him, given the copy of the documents on which the allegations are raised against him and given an opportunity to explain his conduct. Even so, I am of the opinion that a specific notice pointing out the allegations against him and the grounds on which actions proposed to be taken in terms of Rule 7 is required before any action in the nature of Ext.P12 could have been passed against the petitioner. In the absence of any such show cause notice and in the nature of the allegations now found against the petitioner in Ext.P12, I am of the opinion that the action taken to disqualify the petitioner and to appoint the AEO as temporary Manager in his place is completely unjustified. 11. I am supported in my conclusions by the unreported decision of this Court in W.P(c) No.2761 of 2014. Paragraph 10 is read as follows :- “10. There is also yet another reason why the order cannot be sustained. 11. I am supported in my conclusions by the unreported decision of this Court in W.P(c) No.2761 of 2014. Paragraph 10 is read as follows :- “10. There is also yet another reason why the order cannot be sustained. Even assuming that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as the Manager of Malaparamba AUP School as he is himself the educational agency (individual educational agency), even while disqualifying him to act as the Manager, as the educational agency, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to appoint another person as the Manager. The disqualification contemplated in rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules is the disqualification of the Manager and not of the educational agency. Having regard to the interval of time between the alleged action which led to disqualification and the date on which the order of disqualification was passed, it is evident that such an opportunity was also not given to the petitioner. Apart from disqualifying the petitioner, the Deputy Director also appointed the Assistant Educational Officer as the temporary Manager. Such a measure could have been adopted only if the educational agency had declined to appoint another person as the Manager.” 12. In case the contention is that the petitioner is continuing as Manager of the School without the conduct of the election, I am of the opinion that it is for the educational agency to answer such contentions. It is appears from the pleadings that no notice had ever been issued to the educational agency to explain its conduct in this regard. 13. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P12 order is legally unsustainable. Ext.P12 is set aside. In case the respondents are desirous of proceeding against the petitioner or the educational agency, it shall be done only after issuance of due notice pointing out the specific allegations and after hearing the parties and after considering their contentions in accordance with law. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.