JUDGMENT : The Principal of the 'Sankara Menon Memorial Higher Secondary School', Palakkad, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P18 order of the Manager, suspending her from service with effect from 23.09.2020; as also Ext.P20 order of the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Malappuram, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDD’ for brevity), granting concurrence to the said suspension beyond 15 days, as per the provisions of the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short). 2. The plethora of documents and pleadings available on record reveals that the singular allegation of the petitioner against Ext.P18 order of suspension is that it has not been signed or issued by the Manager, but by another person, since he was abroad at the time when it was issued. As regards Ext.P20, the petitioner asserts that it is non-est and null because the RDD is not statutorily competent to grant concurrence to orders of suspension of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools. 3. I have heard Sri.Benoy Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 -Manager and Headmaster of the school respectively; and Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 4. Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan – learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, in response, submitted that the allegation of the petitioner, that Ext.P18 has been issued by a person other than the Manager, is wholly incorrect because, even though he was in the United States of America at the relevant time, he had served the order of suspension on the petitioner through E-mail. He, in substantiation, drew my attention to the statement filed on behalf of his clients on 11.12.2020, wherein, Ext.R4 series E-mails have been produced and thus asserted that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is without fault. He, thereafter, submitted that the Manager was constrained to issue Ext.P18 order of suspension because the RDD instructed him to do so, after finding that there were gross irregularities in the school, when he made a surprise inspection. He, thereafter, submitted that the Manager was constrained to issue Ext.P18 order of suspension because the RDD instructed him to do so, after finding that there were gross irregularities in the school, when he made a surprise inspection. He added that, therefore, after Ext.P18 order of suspension was served on the petitioner, the same was presented before the RDD for concurrence, as is required under Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER; and that the said Authority granted permission to continue the petitioner under suspension beyond the period of 15 days, through Ext.P18 order. 5. Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan thus prayed that the challenge of the petitioner to both Exts.P18 and P20 be repelled and that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 6. In reply, Sri.Binoy Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P18 suspension order is dated 22.09.2020 and is seen to have been posted from Palakkad on 23.09.2020, as is evident from the postal endorsements on Ext.P18(a). He argued that, therefore, when the Manager of the School, Rev.T.G.Johnson, was admittedly out of India on these days, it is impossible that Ext.P18 could have been signed by him, though it contains his signature, which he asserts is because another person was using his signed letter heads for creating such documents. He thus predicated that Ext.P18 is improper; and consequently, that Ext.P20 order of concurrence issued by the RDD would obtain no effect legally, even if the said officer is taken to have jurisdiction to issue it. 7. Sri. Binoy Thomas then submitted that Ext.P20 cannot find support in law either, because it has been issued by the RDD, who is incompetent to issue such an order under the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER. He added that this is more so now, because of the amendments to the said proviso, which makes it limpid that only the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) can place a Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice Principal of the school under suspension; while the orders of suspension of Teachers/Principals of Higher Secondary Schools can be approved only by an officer authorised by the Government. He vehemently added that there is no such authorisation issued by the Government until now and therefore, that the RDD could not have issued Ext.P20, particularly because, even prior to the afore amendment, he had no such power. 8. He vehemently added that there is no such authorisation issued by the Government until now and therefore, that the RDD could not have issued Ext.P20, particularly because, even prior to the afore amendment, he had no such power. 8. Sri.Benoy Thomas concluded his submissions by saying that Ext.P20 is also vitiated because, admittedly, his client was placed under suspension by the Manager at the dictation of the RDD and resultantly, that the said Aauthority could not have granted concurrence to the continuation of his suspension beyond fifteen days, since this would make him the ‘judge, jury and executioner’, which is proscribed in law. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be allowed and Exts.P18 and P20 be set aside. 9. Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader, argued in support of Ext.P20 order, saying that the RDD had found grievous issues in the working of the school, when the petitioner was its Principal; and that he had no other option but to direct the Manager to place her under suspension. He said that, therefore, no fault can be found against Ext.P20 because the said officer was only acting in furtherance of the interests of the school, its students, teachers and staff. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 10. The evaluation of the rival contentions of the parties, I must say, persuades me to find great force in the submissions of the petitioner. 11. I say as afore because, Ext.P18 certainly comes across as a suspicious document because, even though the learned counsel for the Manager – Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, asserts that it was proceeded by an E-mail communication, no such has been placed on record, even in the counter pleadings filed by the Manager. What has been solely made available by the Manager for the scrutiny of this Court, are Ext.R4(a) series E-mails, wherein, there is not even a whisper that the Manager is placing the petitioner under suspension; but it only contains certain routine communications between the two with respect to the functioning of the school. 12. Therefore, when it is unequivocally admitted that the Manager was in the United States of America on 22.09.2020 and 23.09.2020, it is impossible to believe that he had signed Ext.P18 and sent it to the petitioner, through Ext.R4(a) postal endorsement. 12. Therefore, when it is unequivocally admitted that the Manager was in the United States of America on 22.09.2020 and 23.09.2020, it is impossible to believe that he had signed Ext.P18 and sent it to the petitioner, through Ext.R4(a) postal endorsement. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the Manager had signed the document while being in the United States of America, it is inscrutable as to how the said document could have been obtained by the school on 22.09.2020, which is then seen dispatched from its local address in Palakkad, on 23.09.2020. These factors certainly cast an ominous cloud on the veracity of Ext.P18 and this Court cannot be oblivious to the same. 13. That having been said, as regards the competence of Ext.P20, the petitioner has made out sufficient justification in persuading this Court to a view against it. This is because, as is rightly stated by Sri.Binoy Thomas, the Manager issued Ext.P18 order, suspending the petitioner, concededly, on the recommendations of the RDD. Therefore, once the said suspension order had been issued, the Manager could not have forwarded the same for the concurrence of the RDD himself because: for one, the said Authority is not statutorily competent to offer such, even as per the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER; and for the second, he could not have given concurrence to an action that he himself proposed and executed. 14. On both the afore grounds, Ext.P20 cannot find favour in law and this position against the respondents is exacerbated because, through the amendment to the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER – brought in by the Government as per GO(P)No.6/2019/G.Edn, dated 30.06.2019 -only an officer authorised by the Government can grant concurrence to the suspension of Higher Secondary School Teachers and Principals; while only the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) can offer such concurrence in the case of Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice Principal. Pertinently, even prior to this amendment, the RDD had no role to play in this and obviously, therefore, Ext.P20 can only be seen to have been issued by him without any statutory jurisdiction. 15. Pertinently, even prior to this amendment, the RDD had no role to play in this and obviously, therefore, Ext.P20 can only be seen to have been issued by him without any statutory jurisdiction. 15. I must also record that neither Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan nor the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj, has any case that any order has been issued by the Government authorising the RDD to act under the confines of the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of the KER; and indubitably, therefore, his actions reflected in Ext.P20 will have to be found to be incompetent. In the afore circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference by this Court; and resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and quash Exts.P18 and P20, however, leaving full liberty to the Manager and to the competent Educational Authorities to initiate and conclude any action against the petitioner, that may be permissible under the KER, but only as per law and after following the imperative and mandatory procedure established under it.