JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. The petitioner, (Prof.) Dr. Ciza Thomas while officiating as Senior Joint Director at the Directorate of Technical Education Kerala, was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the University temporarily by the Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. This resulted in initiating disciplinary action by the Government of Kerala. A show cause notice was issued as a prelude to disciplinary action on 10/3/2023 pointing out that the petitioner has violated Rule 48 of Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. 2. The petitioner questioned show cause notice before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the matter. 3. The simple point in this case is as to the legality of the show cause notice. 4. The Tribunal or the Court shall not interfere in normal circumstances with the show cause notice or disciplinary action. However, there is an exemption to this normal rule. The show cause notice itself is ex facie arbitrary or issued without authority; or also issued on a misconceived interpretation of law that defines the conduct Rules. The very purpose of disciplinary action is to probe into the allegations levelled against the delinquent employee in the charge memo and find guilt or non-guilt after inquiry. The Court, while entertaining a challenge against a show cause notice, if can form an opinion on an adjudication of pure question of law that the validity of show cause notice can be decided, nothing prevents the Court from deciding upon the challenge made against the show cause notice. The Tribunal or the Court is the final arbiter on the point of law. If a decision on pure question of law would settle the fate of the show cause notice, the Court can very well entertain the challenge and decide. The Court at this stage should be circumspect from probing into factual foundation in the show cause notice and should desist evaluating the facts for taking a decision. 5. In the light of the law as above, we shall now refer to the relevant portion of the Rule 48 in Government Service Conduct Rules, 1960 which reads thus : 48. The Court at this stage should be circumspect from probing into factual foundation in the show cause notice and should desist evaluating the facts for taking a decision. 5. In the light of the law as above, we shall now refer to the relevant portion of the Rule 48 in Government Service Conduct Rules, 1960 which reads thus : 48. Private trade or employment.- (1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment: Provided that a Government servant may, without such sanction undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional work of a literary, artistic or scientific character, subject to the condition that his official duties do not thereby suffer, but he shall not undertake or shall discontinue such work if so directed by the Government. Explanation I.- Canvassing by a Government servant in support of the business of insurance agency, commission agency etc., owned or managed by his wife or any other member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-rule. Explanation I.- Canvassing by a Government servant in support of the business of insurance agency, commission agency etc., owned or managed by his wife or any other member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-rule. Explanation II.- The issue of certificate and commendations by Government servants with regard to a product of cultural, artistic or industrial enterprise likely to be published for the business advancement of any person shall also be deemed to be a breach of the sub-rule: Provided further that a Government servant may, without such sanction, undertake work connected with examinations (including examinerships) conducted by Universities, Public Service Commission and other examining bodies under the State Government or the Central Government or by the London Chamber of Commerce, and accept the remuneration therefor on condition that such work does not interfere with his normal duties; but he shall not undertake more than three examinerships in a year: Provided further that the Director of Survey and Land Records and the Assistant Directors of Survey and Land Records of the Survey Department may without such sanction undertake examinerships relating to the survey and Land Records Department notwithoutstanding that the number of examinerships in a year may exceed three, and accept the remuneration therefore: Provided also that the teaching staff of the Medical Colleges and Dental College under the State Government may without such sanction accept examiner ships, in respect of examinations relating to Medical Science, in not more than three Universities in an year, notwithstanding that the number of examinerships in a year may exceed three and accept remuneration therefore. Note:- The limitation with regard to the number of Universities in the proviso will not be applicable in respect of examinerships for Post Graduate Examinations, in which case the teachers can take up examinerships in any number of Universities subject to the condition that this will not affect their teaching work: Provided also that the teaching staff of the Veterinary College, Trichur of the Animal Husbandry Department may without such sanction accept examinerships, in respect of examinations conducted inside the State relating to Veterinary Science, notwithstanding that the number of examinerships in a year may exceed three, and accept remuneration therefore. Note:- The restriction in the second proviso to this rule will, however apply to acceptance of examinerships in respect of examinations conducted outside the State by the teaching staff of the Veterinary College, Trichur. (2) Every Government servant shall report to the Government if any member of his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency. 6. The object of the above rule is to prevent an employee from directly or indirectly engaging in any trade or business or from undertaking any new employment, while he is continuing to be a Government servant. That means, if the Government servant voluntarily acts to engage any trade or business, or take any employment of any other nature, that cannot be done without previous sanction from the Government. 7. The petitioner’s appointment as the Vice Chancellor was consequent upon the office becoming vacant due to a court order sustaining the challenge of appointment of Doctor Rajashri who did not possess requisite qualification as per the UGC Regulations 2018. The Governor of Kerala is the Chancellor of the University. The Governor has the power to appoint and fill the office of the Vice Chancellor for a period not exceeding 6 years, by virtue of Section 13(7) of the APJ Technological University Act, 2015 (Act 17 of 2015). The Governor has to act on the recommendation of the Government. The Governor, having found that some of the recommendees of the Government do not possess necessary qualification to tide over the situation, appointed the petitioner to occupy the office of the Vice Chancellor temporarily. This Court, on a challenge made by the Government against the appointment of the petitioner, justified the action of the Chancellor in W.A. No.1847/2022. 8. The appointment of the petitioner by the Chancellor, who is the Governor of Kerala, admittedly, is by invoking the statutory provisions. Rule 48 of the UGC Regulations does not contemplate any violation of Government servant’s conduct if such an appointment is made through the process of law. The rule only contemplates taking up of employment by the Government servant by his own volition. If proper interpretation of law is accorded as above, it can be seen that show cause notice is misconceived and legally unsustainable. The Government servant can only be proceeded for disciplinary action against violation of any existing rules or law. The rule only contemplates taking up of employment by the Government servant by his own volition. If proper interpretation of law is accorded as above, it can be seen that show cause notice is misconceived and legally unsustainable. The Government servant can only be proceeded for disciplinary action against violation of any existing rules or law. If the appointment is made invoking statutory provisions in another service, and not based on the individual application of the Government servant, that will not amount to violation of Rule 48. Based on the interpretation of Rule 48 as above, we are of the view that the show notice is unsustainable. Further, we note that in a challenge made by the Government, we had justified the appointment of the petitioner as the Vice Chancellor. The legality of her appointment cannot be reopened as inter party judgment would bind the Government as well. The learned Additional Advocate General Shri Asok M. Cherian’s argument is that it is not the legality of the appointment but the conduct of the petitioner which is the subject matter of the disciplinary action. We are afraid to accept this argument for the reason that the conduct of the petitioner in taking up the post of Vice Chancellor temporarily as explained earlier was not on her desire or application but made by the Chancellor invoking statutory provisions. Thus, the original petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and we quash Annexure A8 before the Tribunal.