JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor (Economics) at MES College, Nedunkandam, Idukki. The petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings as per the charge memo dated 24.07.2023, along with the statement of allegations. 2. The charge memo dated 24.07.2023 would read as under: “CHARGE MEMO That you, Nabilah Haniph, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, MES College. Nedamkandam has been placed under suspension as per Order No.MES/AC/E-1338/23 dt.17.07.2023 of the Corporate Manager, MES Aided Colleges, on the basis of allegations levelled against you in the letter dated 5.7.2023 of the Principal MES College, Nedumkandam. Your tone and tenor in the reply to the warning letter issued by the Corporate Manager also amounts to insubordination. You have even gone to the extent of directing the Corporate Manager to withdraw the warning asserting that you will continue your modus operandi despite the warning. You have also sent a petition direct to the University violating the provisions contained in item No.20(1) in Part B of Chapter 45 of the MG University Statute. On a false complaint of harassment submitted by you, the ICC met and tried to take evidence from you. But instead of co-operating with the proceedings conducted by the Committee, you have raised unfounded allegations against the Committee members and Chairman of the ICC. Because of your belligerent attitude quite unbecoming of an Assistant Professor, the ICC members and the Presiding Officer were constrained to submit their resignation leading to an unpleasant situation. You were also instrumental in causing certain unhappy incidents in the University Kalotsavam wherein the Chairman of the University lodged a complaint against you to the Vice-Chancellor thereby tarnishing the image of the College as well. You are, therefore, directed to submit your written explanation as to why disciplinary action under rule 15 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 read with Section 63 (2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 , may not be taken against you, within 15 days of receipt of this charge memo and also if you desire to be heard in person you will be given the chance and will be intimated the time and venue of the meeting. If your written explanation is not furnished within the time stipulated above, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be proceeded with accordingly.” 3. If your written explanation is not furnished within the time stipulated above, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be proceeded with accordingly.” 3. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, a penalty of withholding of increments temporarily for a period of two years has been imposed on the petitioner under Rule 73(ii) of the M.G University Statutes. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges in the memo of charges dated 24.07.2023 are vague. 5. From the reading of the charges, this court does not find that the contention has any substance and therefore the same is rejected. 6. The writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy of appeal prescribed under Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (‘the MG University Act for short). 7. Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, would read as under:- 63. Disciplinary powers of Educational Agency over teachers of Private Colleges.- (1) The Educational Agency may at any time place a teacher of a Private College under suspension when any disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be taken against him or when such disciplinary proceedings are pending. (2) A teacher of a Private College who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the Educational Agency and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (3) When a teacher of a private College is suspended for a period exceeding fifteen days, the matter together with the reasons for the suspension, shall be reported to the Vice-Chancellor. (4) Any disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of a private college by the educational agency shall be completed within a period of three months or within such further period as may be allowed by the Vice-Chancellor. (5) No disciplinary action shall be taken against a teacher with out giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (5) No disciplinary action shall be taken against a teacher with out giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (6) Any teacher aggrieved by an order imposing on him any of the following penalties, namely:- (a) withholding of increment; (b) recovery from pay of any pecuniary loss caused to the institution or the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increment ordered to be with held; (c) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade or post; and [(cc) removal from service (ccc) compulsory retirement from service]1 (d) dismissal from service, may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on any one or more of the following grounds, namely :- (i) that there is want of good faith in passing the order; (ii) that the order is intended to victimise the appellant; (iii) that in passing the order, the educational agency has been guilty of a basic error or violation of the principles of natural Justice; (iv) that the order is not based on any material or is perverse: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the ppeal within that period. (7) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (6) the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry as may be necessary pass such order thereon as it may deem fit, including an order of reinstatement of the teacher concerned. (8) Any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (7) may be executed through the Subordinate Judges Court having Jurisdiction over the area in which the private college is situated as if it were a decree passed by that court. (9) Any person who objects to an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (7) may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him, prefer a petition accompanied by court fee stamps of the value of ten rupees to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide, any question of law. (10) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), shall be applicable to any proceedings under sub- section (9). (11) The High Court shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such order on the petition, as it deems fit. (12) Where the High Court passes any order under sub-section (11), the Appellate Tribunal shall amend the order passed by it in conformity with the order of the High Court.” 8. Under subsection (6) of Section 63 , any teacher aggrieved by an order imposing on him any of the punishment/penalty provided therein may approach the Appellate Tribunal against the order of punishment. The time prescribed for approaching the Tribunal is 60 days from the date of the order. 9.Thus, under Section 63 (9) of the Act, a second appeal from the decision of the University Appellate Tribunal lies to the High Court. 10.It appears that the petitioner, on wrong legal advice, approached this Court in the present writ petition, though, he has a statutory remedy of filing the appeal before the University Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the University Appellate Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 63 of the Act. If the petitioner files the appeal within a period of ten days from today, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the appeal in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. However, if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within a period of ten days from today, the appeal may be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. The Tribunal shall decide the case on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court. For a period of ten days from today, the interim order granted by this court shall remain in operation