JUDGMENT : 1. These six cases are connected; therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common judgment. 2. The cases are mainly concerning a dispute between the Manager of an aided school by the name ‘Mahaganapathy Lower Primary School’, M.Pudur, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘School’) on one side and the Headmistress of the same School on the other side. Even though the School is in the name of God ‘Mahaganapathy’, the fight between the Manager and the Headmistress has been continuing for the last several years. About 25 proceedings were initiated before this Court either by way of writ petitions or writ appeals by both parties. Let us pray to the god "mahaganapathy" to bless the children studying in this school for a bright education period untrammeled by this fight between the Manager and the Headmistress. 3. W.P.(C) No.4190/2018, 6741/2018, 29033/2020 and 2983/2022 are filed by the Headmistress of the School, Smt.T.S.Saji. Smt.T.S.Saji is hereinafter mentioned as the 'Headmistress'. W.P.(C) No.11964/2020 is filed by the Manager of the School. W.P.(C) No.7976/2023 is filed by another teacher by the name B. Geetha of the same School. 4. Smt.T.S.Saji was appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant (in short, LPSA) in the School on 05.09.1989. She was promoted as Headmistress on 22.09.2008. While working as Headmistress, she was suspended from service with effect from 06.03.2017 on certain charges. Ext.P1 produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is the suspension order. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2 produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018, the Manager was directed to reinstate the Headmistress into service. But the Manager refused to reinstate the Headmistress, even after Ext.P2. 5. The petitioner, Headmistress, filed a complaint against the Manager of the School alleging sexual advancement towards her. It is the case of the Headmistress that she was mentally and physically harassed by the Manager, and also demoralised her in order to appoint his wife as the Headmistress. In the meanwhile, the Headmistress received Ext.P4 communication from the Manager stating that she cannot be reinstated in service. The Headmistress submitted Ext.P5 reply to Ex.P4. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollangode, again issued Ext.P6 order to revoke the suspension of the Headmistress and to reinstate her. Thereafter, in the month of April 2017, the Manager issued Ext.P7 charge memo to the Headmistress, to which also the Headmistress submitted her reply. 6. Later as per G.O.(Rt.)No.2804/2017/Gen.Edn. The Headmistress submitted Ext.P5 reply to Ex.P4. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollangode, again issued Ext.P6 order to revoke the suspension of the Headmistress and to reinstate her. Thereafter, in the month of April 2017, the Manager issued Ext.P7 charge memo to the Headmistress, to which also the Headmistress submitted her reply. 6. Later as per G.O.(Rt.)No.2804/2017/Gen.Edn. Dated 16.08.2017, the Government directed the Manager to reinstate the Headmistress. In the Government Order, it was further directed to enquire into the allegations made against the Manager by the Headmistress alleging sexual advancement. The Government also directed to enquire about the charges raised against the Headmistress. 7. After the above Government Order, the Manager approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.28952/2017, and this Court was pleased to stay the Government Order to the extent to which it directs reinstatement of the Headmistress on condition that the Manager shall issue a memo of charges within one month and with a further direction to the Manager as well as the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to complete the enquiry within a period of two months. Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No.28952/2017. Based on the above interim order, the Manager issued Ext.P10 charge memo. Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is the reply to Ext.P10 charge memo produced in that writ petition. 8. Meanwhile, the Headmistress filed a petition to vacate the interim order dated 31.08.2017 in W.P.(C). No.28952/2017. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer initially submitted an enquiry report on 09.01.2018. Later, on the basis of the directions contained in the order dated 23.01.2018 in W.P.(C). No.28952/2017, the District Educational Officer again submitted another report after conducting an enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Ext.P14 produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is the enquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. It is the case of the Headmistress that the main charges levelled against her are found to be incorrect in the enquiry report, but there are findings arrived at against the Headmistress with respect to the financial transaction that allegedly took place during 2010-2011, 2011-2012 onwards. 9. According to the Headmistress, Ext.P14 enquiry report is without application of mind and without considering the contentions of the Headmistress. It is also contended that there were no charges in the memo of charges with respect to the financial transactions in 2010-2011. 9. According to the Headmistress, Ext.P14 enquiry report is without application of mind and without considering the contentions of the Headmistress. It is also contended that there were no charges in the memo of charges with respect to the financial transactions in 2010-2011. Based on Ext.P14 enquiry report produced in W.P.(C). No.6741/2018, a show cause notice was issued, as evident by Ext.P15 produced in that case. The Headmistress submitted Ext.P16 explanation to the show cause notice. Thereafter, W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is filed with the following prayers: “i) To Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P14 to the extent to which it is detrimental to the petitioner and P15 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary; ii) To declare that Ext.P14 report to the extent to which it is detrimental to the petitioner is issued in violation of Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA KER and that no action can be taken against the petitioner based on the said report; iii) To declare that Ext.P15 show cause notice which is issued based on Ext.P14 enquiry report cannot be acted upon against the petitioner; iv) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the post of Headmistress at the 5th respondent’s school and is not liable to be imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service; v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders cancelling Ext.P14 enquiry report to the extent to which it is detrimental to the petitioner and to fully exonerate petitioner her from the charges levelled in Ext.P10 charge memo; vi) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from implementing Exts.P14 and P15 against the petitioner; vii) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC] 10. W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is filed mainly challenging the inquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, which is produced as Ext.P14 in that writ petition. 11. W.P.(C). No.4190/2018 is filed by the Headmistress to initiate enquiry proceedings against the Manager based on G.O.(Rt.) No.2804/2017/G.Edn. dated 16.08.2017. The prayers in W.P.(C). W.P.(C). No.6741/2018 is filed mainly challenging the inquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, which is produced as Ext.P14 in that writ petition. 11. W.P.(C). No.4190/2018 is filed by the Headmistress to initiate enquiry proceedings against the Manager based on G.O.(Rt.) No.2804/2017/G.Edn. dated 16.08.2017. The prayers in W.P.(C). No.4190/2018 is extracted hereunder: “i) To declare that the Manager 5th respondent is unfit to hold the post of Manager for the act of sexual harassment committed by him against the petitioner; ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to initiate enquiry against the Manager 5th respondent on the allegations of sexual harassment made by the petitioner as directed in Ext.P1 GO, in accordance with Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevision, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 read with KER Act and Rules thereunder; iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders finalising the enquiry against the Manager as directed in Ext.P1 GO within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; iv) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.[SIC]” 12. On the other hand, the case of the Manager is that the District Finance Inspection Squad, on the basis of the enquiry conducted in the School, submitted a report with file No.253/FIW-F2/2018/Fin dated 30.08.2018, in which serious financial misappropriation and embezzlement from the part of the 6th respondent is found in the mid-day meal scheme in the School. Ext.P14 produced in W.P.(C). No.11964/2020 is the report dated 30.08.2018 of the District Finance Inspection Squad. It is stated that a criminal case was registered against the Headmistress as Crime No.23/2019, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 406, 409 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the Headmistress in the above criminal case as evident by Ext.P15 bail order produced in W.P.(C). No.11964/2020. Based on the above report of the District Finance Inspection Squad, the Headmistress was again placed under suspension as per Ext.P16 produced in W.P.(C). No.11964/2020 on 08.03.2019. Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 produced in that writ petition, was also served to the Headmistress, which are the charge sheet with the statement of allegations. No.11964/2020. Based on the above report of the District Finance Inspection Squad, the Headmistress was again placed under suspension as per Ext.P16 produced in W.P.(C). No.11964/2020 on 08.03.2019. Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 produced in that writ petition, was also served to the Headmistress, which are the charge sheet with the statement of allegations. It is the case of the Manager that the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollangode, as per Ext.P18 order produced in W.P.(C). No.11964/2020 permitted the Manager to extend the suspension order beyond the period of 15 days as per the mandate in Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules,1959 (hereinafter referred to as, “KER”). 13. The Headmistress filed a revision and a stay petition before the Government against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer permitting the extension of the suspension order. This Court, as per Ext.P19 judgment produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020, directed to consider that revision and to pass appropriate orders in it. Thereafter the Government considered the revision filed by the Headmistress and passed an order as G.O.(Rt.)No.4326/2019/G.Edn. dated 21.10.2019 with observations/directions interalia that the allegations of fabrication of bills and misappropriation of funds are clearly proved on the basis of the enquiry conducted by different State authorities. But the Government directed to reinstate the Headmistress pending disciplinary proceedings. Ext.P20 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020 is the Government Order disposing the revision. The above Government Order was challenged by the Manager and the 6th respondent by filing W.P.(C)Nos.29663/2019 and 29305/2019. This Court as per Ext.P21 order produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020 stayed the above Government Order confining the reinstatement of the Headmistress. Challenging the above interim order, the Headmistress filed Writ Appeal. As per Ext.P22 judgment produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020, the above Writ Appeal was disposed of, setting aside Ext.P21 interim order mentioned above and directing the Manager to reinstate the Headmistress in service forthwith. The Division Bench also directed the educational authorities to conduct an investigation and complete disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmistress within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Against Ext.P22 judgment of the Division Bench produced in W.P(C) No.11964/2020, the Manager filed SLP (C)No.1073/2020 and 1074/2020 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the above SLPs as per Ext.P23 common order produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020. Subsequently, the Headmistress was reinstated into service by the Manager, as evident by Ext.P24 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020. Against Ext.P22 judgment of the Division Bench produced in W.P(C) No.11964/2020, the Manager filed SLP (C)No.1073/2020 and 1074/2020 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the above SLPs as per Ext.P23 common order produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020. Subsequently, the Headmistress was reinstated into service by the Manager, as evident by Ext.P24 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020. In the meanwhile, the Manager issued an additional charge memo as evident by Ext.P26 produced in W.P. (C)No.11964/2020, to the Headmistress, which was in addition to Ext.P17 memo of charges and statement of allegation produced in that writ petition itself. Thereafter the Manager requested the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollengode, to conduct an enquiry as per Ext.P27 application. The Assistant Educational Officer, Kollengode, issued a hearing notice subsequently, and then the Manager submitted a request to postpone the hearing and requested to conduct a detailed enquiry as per Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Ext.P29 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020 is the application submitted by the Manager. Thereafter the Manager issued another hearing notice as evident by Ext.P30 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020. Thereafter the Manager approached the Deputy Director of Education with a request to issue a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry as per Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Such an application was submitted before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad also by the Manager. Thereafter the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollengode, issued Ext.P34 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020, ordering interalia to bar one increment of the Headmistress. It is also ordered to refund the excess amount withdrawn by the Headmistress with interest. The grievance of the Manager is that Ext.P34 produced in W.P.(C)No.11964/2020 is without complying the mandate of enquiry as contemplated in Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER and hence the Manager filed Ext.P35 revision memorandum challenging the same. When there was a delay in considering the same, W.P.(C)No.11964/2020 is filed with the following prayers: “i) Quash Exhibit P34 by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to strictly follow the mandate encompassed composed in Chapter XIVA, Rule 75, of KER, while conducting the enquiry against the 6th respondent as per Exhibit P22 judgment. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to strictly follow the mandate encompassed composed in Chapter XIVA, Rule 75, of KER, while conducting the enquiry against the 6th respondent as per Exhibit P22 judgment. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry against the 6th respondent regarding the allegations leveled against her. iv) This Hon'ble Court may be further be pleased to pass any other just and equitable order under the given facts and circumstances of the case as deemed fit in favour of the petitioner. [SIC]" 14. Challenging the order bearing No.F/477/2019 dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Kollengode, the Headmistress filed W.P.(C)No.2983/2022 with the following prayers: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P12 to the extent to which it contains findings adverse to the petitioner and imposes the punishment of increment bar for 1 year and fixes a liability of Rs 4,45,941.85 and Rs. 10184.50 with 18% interest on the petitioner as unjust, arbitrary, and unsustainable; ii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P13 and P14 as unjust, illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable; iii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as proposed in Exts. P12, P13 and P14, and that she is not liable to be imposed with the punishment of increment bar for 1 year based on Ext. P12; iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to refrain from proceeding against the petitioner based on Exts.P12, P13 and P14; v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass orders cancelling Ext. P12 to the extent it fixes the liability of Rs. 9,65,487/- against the petitioner and imposes the punishment of increment bar for 1 year, and cancelling Exts. P13 and P14; vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.[SIC]” 15. In the meanwhile, the Government, as per Ext.P20 produced in W.P.(C)No.29033/2020 ordered to conduct an enquiry against the Headmistress under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. In the meanwhile, the Government, as per Ext.P20 produced in W.P.(C)No.29033/2020 ordered to conduct an enquiry against the Headmistress under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Consequently, the additional Director of General Education and Vigilance Officer appointed one Mr. Aboobakker, Joint Director (Academic), as the enquiry officer as per Ext.P21 produced in W.P.(C)No.29033/2020. Challenging the Government Order and the consequential order appointing the enquiry officer, W.P.(C)No.29033/2020 is filed by the Headmistress with the following prayers: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P20 and P21 as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable; ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule XIVA KER based on Exts. P20 and P21; iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P17 G.O. to the extent to which it directs the 2nd respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner after identifying the alleged loss amount at the rate of 18% interest in relation to the noon meal program for the period from 2010-2011 to 2017 February, and the findings in Ext. P17 which are detrimental to the petitioner as unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable; iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders cancelling Exts. P20 and Ext. P21; v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 6 to refrain from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on Exts. P20 and P21; vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.[SIC]” 16. W.P.(C)No.7976/2023 is filed by one Smt. B. Geetha who is another teacher in the same School. According to Smt. B. Geetha, she will retire from service on 31.03.2023. She availed leave in connection with the delivery of her daughter. When there was some complication in connection with the delivery, Smt. Geetha again applied for another set of half-pay leave from 16.01.2023 till 31.03.2023, which is the date on which she retires. But the Manager suspended her as per Ext.P7 order. Smt. Geetha submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Assistant Educational Officer against the same. But the Manager issued Ext.P9 charge memo against Smt. Geetha. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of suspension as per Ext.P10 produced in W.P.(C)No.7976/2023. But the Manager suspended her as per Ext.P7 order. Smt. Geetha submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Assistant Educational Officer against the same. But the Manager issued Ext.P9 charge memo against Smt. Geetha. Subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer directed the Manager to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of suspension as per Ext.P10 produced in W.P.(C)No.7976/2023. Despite the above order, Smt. B. Geetha was not reinstated is her grievance. Hence W.P.(C)No.7976/2023 is filed with the following prayers: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P7 and P9 as unjust, illegal, and unsustainable; ii) To declare that the Ext. P10 has to be implemented forthwith; iii) To declare that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in Ext. P7 and P9 are false and without good faith and that the suspension period from 18.01.2023 is entitled to be treated as duty for all service benefits; iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue orders stating that the suspension from 18.01.2023 is illegal and the said period is entitled to be treated as the duty with all service benefits; v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to refrain from all disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on Exts. P7 and P9; (vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. (vii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.[SIC]” 17. When these writ petitions came up for consideration, the counsel appearing for the Headmistress Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that, because of his physical ailment, he may be allowed to submit argument notes in all these cases. Considering the submission of Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj, the other counsel appearing for the other parties, agreed that they will also file argument notes, and this Court may pass appropriate orders after going through the argument notes. Accordingly, the Manager and Headmistress filed detailed argument notes. The Government Pleader also submitted an argument note. The argument notes submitted by the parties will be part of the records. 18. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Government Pleader in these cases. All these writ petitions relate to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmistress of the School. Actually, there are two disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmaster. The argument notes submitted by the parties will be part of the records. 18. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Government Pleader in these cases. All these writ petitions relate to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmistress of the School. Actually, there are two disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmaster. The first one was initiated by the Manager by the issuance of a suspension order dated 06.03.2017, and the second one relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Manager suspending the Headmistress on 08.03.2019. W.P.(C)No.6741/2018 relates to the first disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I will deal with W.P.(C)No.6741/2018 first. 19. W.P.(C)No.6741/2018 is filed challenging Exts.P14 and P15 produced in that writ petition. Ext.P14 is the enquiry report of the District Educational Officer, Palakkad and Ext.P15 is the show cause notice issued by the Manager against the Headmistress based on Ext.P14. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel appearing for the Manager, stating that no writ petition is maintainable against an enquiry report. The counsel appearing for the Manager relied on the judgment of this Court in Rani P. John. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2015 (4) KHC 824 ]. Therefore, the maintainability issue is to be decided first. 20. Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Whenever a complaint is received or on intimation from the authorised officer as per Sec.12(A) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, is recorded or on consideration of the report of investigation or for other reasons, the Manager of the school is satisfied that there is prima facie case for taking action against a teacher, the definite charge or charges is to be framed framed and communicated to the teacher concerned with the statement of allegations on which charge is based and on any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The teacher shall be required to submit his reply within a reasonable time. After a written statement from the teacher is received within a time allowed, the Manager may if he is satisfied that a formal enquiry is to be held into the conduct of the teacher, the Manager can order a formal enquiry. Then the Manager shall forward the records of the cases with a request to the educational authorities to conduct a formal enquiry. Then the Manager shall forward the records of the cases with a request to the educational authorities to conduct a formal enquiry. The authority to conduct the formal enquiry is narrated in detail in Rule 75(1) (b) of Chapter XIV A KER. The inquiring officer may, during the course of inquiry, add to, amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the teacher, in which case the teacher shall be required to submit within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf any further written statement of his defence. On receipt of the further written statement of the defence, the inquiring officer may inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted. The teacher can present his case before the inquiring officer. The inquiring authority shall, in the course of the inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The teacher shall be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses as may be produced, examined in his defence. The person presenting the case in support of the charges is entitled to cross-examine the teacher and the witnesses examined in his defence. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiring authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its finding on each of the charges together with the reason thereof. If, in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record its findings on such charges provided that the finding of such charges shall not be recorded unless the teacher has admitted the facts constituting them or has an opportunity of defending himself against them. After inquiry, the inquiring authority shall forward the records of inquiry to the Manager, which include item No. (i) to (vi), as mentioned in Rule 75 (9) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. If the Manager is of the opinion that any of the penalties mentioned in item No.(iv) to (viii) of rule 65 should be imposed, the Manager shall furnish to the teacher a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority, give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling up on him to submit his reply. On receipt of the representation, if any and after taking into consideration the representation, the final order shall be passed by the Manager imposing the penalty with the previous sanction of the competent authority. From the above, it is clear that the Manager is the ultimate authority to impose penalty and the penalty can be imposed only with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Therefore, the inquiry report may not have any validity, unless such a report is acted upon by the Manager with the previous sanction of the competent authority. 21. In this case, the impugned orders are the inquiry report and the consequential show cause notice issued by the Manager. The Manager can accept the explanation submitted by the Headmistress and close the disciplinary proceedings if necessary. If the Manager is of the opinion that the explanation submitted is not satisfactory, he can initiate further proceedings. If further proceedings are to be initiated for imposing a major penalty, the Manager has to file an application under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. The prior permission from the competent authority mentioned in Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER is necessary for imposing a major penalty. If the competent authority mentioned in Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER grants permission to impose a major penalty, there is no bar for the teacher concerned to challenge that order, if there is any patent illegality in it. Of course, the maintainability of the same is to be decided by the authority concerned or the Court concerned. If the Manager imposes a penalty based on the permission obtained under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER, the petitioner has got statutory remedies in the Kerala Education Rules. Kerala Education Act, 1958 and Kerala Education Rules 1959 are complete codes in which a hierarchy of authorities are mentioned to challenge the orders. If a person is aggrieved by the orders passed by the statutory authorities mentioned in KER, he may challenge the same before this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. In W.P.(C.) No. 6741/2018, the order impugned is only an inquiry report. If a person is aggrieved by the orders passed by the statutory authorities mentioned in KER, he may challenge the same before this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. In W.P.(C.) No. 6741/2018, the order impugned is only an inquiry report. The counsel appearing for the Headmistress filed a detailed argument note stating that the sequence of events, in this case, would show that the intention of the Manager is to remove the Headmistress from the school and to appoint his wife as the Headmistress. Several legal and factual contentions are raised in the argument note. This Court carefully perused the argument notes submitted by the Headmistress and also the dates and events mentioned in the argument notes. 23. The validity of an inquiry report of the inquiry officer prepared and submitted as per Rule 75(10) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER need not be entertained by this Court because the same is to be acted upon by the Manager after giving a show cause notice to the person against whom the inquiry report is submitted. Thereafter, if a major penalty is to be imposed by the Manager, the Manager has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority as per Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Therefore, the challenge against the inquiry report need not be entertained usually by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court need not anticipate that the Manager will act upon the same and impose a major penalty. Moreover, there are no malafides alleged against the inquiry officer in this case. The main crux of the argument against the inquiry report is the malafide intention of the Manager. The inquiry report is prepared by the educational authorities. Whether the same is to be acted upon by the Manager is the next stage. If the Manager acts upon that, the consequential penalty can be imposed only after getting permission from the competent authority under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Therefore, the challenge against an inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer as per Rule 75 (10) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER need not be entertained by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there are flagrant illegalities. 24. Therefore, the challenge against an inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer as per Rule 75 (10) of Chapter XIV(A) of KER need not be entertained by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there are flagrant illegalities. 24. It is also to be noted that, in this case, the first complaint was filed by one Mr. Arumughan against the Headmistress on 21.06.2016, alleging misappropriation of funds in connection with the noon meals scheme supplied by the Headmistress. Ext.R5(b) produced in W.P.(C.) No. 4190/2018 is the first complaint, and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education as per Ext.R5(c) on 04.07.2016. As per Ext.R5(d) in that case, dated 19.09.2016, the Deputy Director of Education found that there is an excess stock of 217 kgs of rice in the school. Thereafter, Ext.P2 complaint produced in W.P.(C.) No. 4190/2018 was filed by the Headmistress to the Government on 18.03.2017, alleging sexual harassment against the Manager. Therefore, the first complaint, as per the dates and events supplied by the parties, would show that it was from a third party, namely, Mr. Arumughan, as evident by Ext.R5(b), and that was also on 21.06.2016. Based on that complaint, it was found that there was an excess stock of 217 kgs of rice in the school. I do not want to make any further observations about the dates and events. The case is only at a preliminary stage. Only an inquiry report is submitted by the inquiry officer before the Manager, and the Manager issued a show cause notice. If I discuss the contentions raised by the Headmistress and the Manager in the argument notes in detail, it will prejudice their case. Therefore, I do not want to discuss the matter in detail even though several contentions have been raised by the Headmistress and the Manager in their argument notes. I am of the considered opinion that W.P.(C.) No. 6741/2018 need not be entertained by this Court. Moreover, this Court, in Rani P John's case (supra), held that against an inquiry report, no revision is maintainable under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER. Several contentions are raised by the counsel for the Headmistress in his argument note to distinguish the dictum laid down in Rani P John's case (supra). I leave open all those contentions to be agitated at the appropriate stage, if necessary. Several contentions are raised by the counsel for the Headmistress in his argument note to distinguish the dictum laid down in Rani P John's case (supra). I leave open all those contentions to be agitated at the appropriate stage, if necessary. 25. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that WP(C) No.6741 of 2018 need not be entertained, and the same can be dismissed, granting liberty to the Headmistress to raise all her contentions before the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage, if necessary. 26. WP(C) No.4190 of 2018 is filed to initiate action against the Manager based on Ext.P1 Government Order produced in that writ petition. Ext.R5(j) produced by the Manager in that writ petition is an enquiry report dated 22.02.2018 of the Director of General Educational. Ext.R5(j) is the consequential enquiry based on the directions in Ext.P1 Government Order. If the Headmistress is aggrieved by the same, the Headmistress is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. Ext.R5(l) produced in that case is also a report of the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad closing the complaint filed by the Headmistress against the Manager. If the Headmistress is aggrieved by those orders, the Headmistress is free to challenge the same. Therefore, by granting liberty to the Headmistress to challenge Exts.R5(j), R5(l) and other orders, WP(C) No.4190 of 2018 can be closed. 27. WP(C) No.11964 of 2020 is filed by the Manager challenging Ext.P34 order dated 18.03.2020 of the Assistant Educational Officer. The same order is challenged by the Headmistress also in WP(C) No.2983 of 2022. Exts.P13 and P14 produced in WP(C) No.2983 of 2022 are consequential orders based on Ext.P12 order in that case. Ext.P12 in WP(C) No.2983 of 2022 and Ext.P34 in WP(C) No.11964 of 2020 are one and the same. The Headmistress and the Manager filed revisions against those orders. There can be a direction to consider those revisions by the Government within a time frame. 28. WP(C) No.29033 of 2020 is filed by the Headmistress against Exts.P20 and P21, by which the Government ordered an enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER against the Headmistress. The Headmistress and the Manager filed revisions against those orders. There can be a direction to consider those revisions by the Government within a time frame. 28. WP(C) No.29033 of 2020 is filed by the Headmistress against Exts.P20 and P21, by which the Government ordered an enquiry under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of KER against the Headmistress. Since this Court is already directing the Government to consider the revisions filed by the headmistress and the manager in WP(C) No.4190 of 2018 and WP(C) No.6741 of 2018, the Headmistress can file a fresh representation against Exts.P20 and P21 before the Government, and the Government can be directed to consider that also along with the revision filed by the Manager and the Headmistress against the orders of the Assistant Educational Officer. 29. WP(C) No.7976 of 2023 is filed by a teacher of the school to implement Ext.P10 order of reinstatement with effect from 18.01.2023. The teacher already retired from service on 31.03.2023. If Ext.P10 is in force as on today, and if it is not varied or modified by any competent authority, the same is to be implemented by the Manager by passing consequential order. This Court, as per Ext.R5(g) produced in that writ petition, directed the Government to consider the stay petition and revision filed by the Manager against the reinstatement order. Subject to the decision if any, in the revision, the Manager will implement the reinstatement order. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: 1. WP(C) No.4190 of 2018 is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge Exts.R5(j) and R5(l) if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. 2. WP(C) No.6741 of 2018 is dismissed, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner raised in the writ petition. 3. WP(C) No.11964 of 2020 is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P35 revision petition and to pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent. 4. 3. WP(C) No.11964 of 2020 is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P35 revision petition and to pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent. 4. WP(C) No.2983 of 2022 is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P15 revision petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner, 5th respondent and other affected parties, if any. 5. WP(C) No.29033 of 2020 is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh representation against Exts.P20 and P21, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent and if such a representation is received, the 1st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent along with the revisions, which were already directed to be considered by this Court in WP(C) Nos.11964 of 2020 and 2983 of 2022. 6. WP(C) No.7976 of 2023 is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to implement Ext.P10 order, if there is no prohibitory order from the 1st respondent, in the revision which is directed to be disposed of by this Court as per Ext.R5(g) judgment.