The main legal point established in the judgment is that the educational authority has discretion in permitting extension of suspension beyond 15 days, if necessary, and can direct reinstatement if there are no valid grounds for suspension.

1. The scope of R.67(1) and (8) of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules (for short, the Rules) falls for decision in this writ petition. Narendran J., understood the scope of this rule as follows in Kammaran Gurukkal v. The Assistant Educational Officer (1975 (1) ILR. Kerala 286 at 294):

"In the matter of giving that permission, R.67(1) is the provision which has to be kept in mind. When R.67(1) is complied with, the Educational Officer cannot refuse permission to the Manager under R.67(8) to keep the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days. The necessity to keep the teacher under suspension further or the apprehension whether the records will be tampered with or it will become impossible to conduct an impartial enquiry into the matter if the teacher was reinstated, are not all considerations which are relevant in passing an order under R.678)"

Chandrasekhara Menon J. felt that this decision had to be considered by a Division Bench and it is on a reference by the learned judge that this writ petition comes before us for hearing On an earlier occasion the identical decision fell to be considered by Poti J. (as he then was) in O.P. No. 5037 of 1976. The learned judge quoted the relevant portion of the judgment and made the following reference order; reported in 1978 KLT. SN. 25:

"This would mean that the Educational Officer will have no power even when he finds the action of the Manager to be mala fide or the attitude perverse or unreasonable to cancel the suspension and order reinstatement of a teacher. I do not think that there is any intention indicated in this rule, to place a fetter on the powers of the Educational Officer under the Kerala Education Act or Rules. Since I feet considerable doubt about the correctness of the decision of my learned brother I am referring this case for decision by a Division bench of this Court."

The petition was then heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench did not decide the point referred but dismissed the petition directing the petitioner to his statutory remedy under R.92 Chapter XIV(A), to move the Government in revision. Now the facts.

2. The petitioner is the Manager of S.N.V. High School for Girls. Paravoor. The 3rd respondent, while functioning as the Headmistress of the school, was placed under suspension by the petitioner as per Ext. P1 order dated 30-3-1981, with effect from that date on being satisfied of certain objectionable conduct on her part on the basis of a complaint received against her. The petitioner sent a report to the 2nd respondent about the order of suspension. The 2nd respondent, the Deputy Director, Education, Quilon, made enquiries and passed Ext. P2 order on 10-4-1981 ratifying the action of the petitioner suspending the 3rd respondent for 15 days from 30-3-1981 and directing him to finalise the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner forwarded Ext. P3 memo of charges dated 15-4-1981 to the 3rd respondent. Subsequent to this, the petitioner received Ext. P4 dated 14-5-1981 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 3rd respondent with effect from 14-5-1981 The petitioner filed Ext. P5 revision against the order Ext P4 before the 1st respondent, State of Kerala. Ext P4 order was stayed by Ext. P7. During the pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner received Ext. P6 order dated 2-6-1981 passed by the 2nd respondent declaring that the 3rd respondent would be deemed to have been on duty with effect from 14-4-1981. Later, the revision was dismissed by Ext. P10 order. Hence this petition to quash Exts. P4, P6 and P10 orders and for a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to give permission to the petitioner to place the 3rd respondent under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings against her are over.

3. The petitioner seeks to sustain his prayers on the following grounds: (1) The Petitioner is the appointing authority and as such has the power to suspend the 3rd respondent He can suspend the 3rd respondent for