The District Educational Officer can only consider whether the proposed penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved in the enquiry and cannot give a finding on the charges or go behind the findings in the enquiry report.

1. The ambit of the powers of the District Educational Officer under R.74 Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, for short the K. E. R., in the matter of giving previous sanction to the Manager of an Aided School for imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal from service arises for consideration in this original petition. The vires of R.75(11) (c) of Chapter XIV(A) of the K. E. R. also is questioned in this original petition. The petitioner is the Headmaster-Manager of the Peralam Aided Upper Primary School. On the basis of certain allegations against the 3rd respondent-craft teacher, the petitioner placed him under suspension as per proceedings dated 18-4-1972. The Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur by Ext. P-1 proceedings dated 4-5-1972 granted permission to the petitioner to place the 3rd respondent under suspension beyond the period of 15 days. Thereafter, the charges levelled against the 3rd respondent were enquired into by the Assistant Educational Officer and by Ext. P-2 proceedings dated 9-5-1973 the Assistant Educational Officer found the two charges levelled against the 3rd respondent to be true. Thereupon, the petitioner forwarded to the 3rd respondent a copy of the enquiry report of the Assistant Educational Officer with a show cause notice why the 3rd respondent should not be removed from the staff of the school. To that the 3rd respondent submitted Ext. P-3 representation. On receipt of Ext. P-3 the petitioner by Ext P-4 letter dated 16-8-1973 moved the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer, Kasaragod for previous sanction to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the 3rd respondent. But the 2nd respondent by Ext. P-5 proceedings dated 24-12-1974 informed the petitioner that the charge "Attempt of immoral behaviour towards the girl pupil has not been proved beyond doubt and directed the petitioner to reconsider the case in the light of the above 'findings' arrived at by the 2nd respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner again move! the 2nd respondent by Ext. P-6 letter dated 8-1-1975 pointing out that the Assistant Educational Officer who conducted the enquiry has given a finding that the charge of 'attempt of immoral behaviour towards the girl pupil' was proved and by Ext. P-6 the petitioner again requested the 2nd respondent to give him sanction for imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the 3rd respondent. But the 2nd respondent by Ext. P-7 again directed the petitioner to exclude the charge of attempt of immoral behaviour towards the girl pupil and proceed. The petitioner questions the above proceedings, Exts P-5 and P-7, in this original petition. Exts. P8 to P12 produced along with the original petition throw light into the previous conduct of the 3rd respondent, which is far from satisfactory. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in refusing previous sanction by Exts. P-5 and P-7 is justified in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent who did not accord previous sanction to the petitioner for imposing the penalty of removal from service cannot go behind the findings in the enquiry report arrived at by the Assistant Educational Officer. Learned counsel further contends that under the K. E. R. the 2nd respondent who has to decide only the question of granting previous sanction has no business whatsoever to give a finding on any of the charges against the delinquent teacher. On the question of the vires of R.75 (11) (c), learned counsel refers to S.11 and 12 of the Kerala Education Act, for short the Act, and contends that the powers of an Aided School Manager, who is the appointing authority, cannot be abridged by the above R.75(11)(c) Learned Government Pleader contends that after the enactment of S.12A, not only the Manager, but the Department and the State