The final order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Government in revision, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was the Headmistress of AUP School, Panangattiry, Palakkad District. By Ext.P1, the Asst. Educational Officer granted permission to extend the period of suspension of the petitioner pending the disciplinary action. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following:

3. The petitioner had availed leave from 13.9.2004 to 19.9.2004 and rejoined for duty on 20.9.2004. During the period of leave she had entrusted all the charges of her office of the seniormost teacher by name Smt. Santhakumari. In her absence there was discontinuation of noon feeding to the students. The allegation appears to be that petitioner did not lift sufficient quantity of foodstuff from the Maveli Store concerned and had also misappropriated certain quantity of rice and green gram. The Asst. Educational Officer had conducted the enquiry and Ext.P2 is the order passed by the Manager confirming the punishment proposed. A punishment of permanent reduction of rank to the category of Assistant Teacher was imposed. This was confirmed in revision by the Government as per Ext.P5.

4. It is contended that the entire disciplinary action as taken by the Manager only to help the immediate successor in office to promote him to the post of Headmaster, and he is nephew of the Manager. The second respondent Asst. Educational Officer is the sister in law of the successor to the petitioner, Mr. Sabari. It is submitted that a vigilance enquiry was also conducted in the matter and the report will show that the allegations are not correct and in the said enquiry the only finding is regarding the damage caused to one bag of rice and a small quantity of green gram. Lastly, it is contended that the Asst. Educational Officer who had conducted the enquiry, itself granted sanction for imposing punishment. Therefore, the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as it is evident that the Asst. Educational Officer who had occasion to conduct enquiry, was clearly biased against the petitioner. It is submitted that the same will vitiate the entire proceedings resulting in the imposition of punishment. The petitioner has since retired from service also.

5. On behalf of the Government, a counter affidavit has been filed. Along with a memo the vigilance enquiry report has also been produced before this court by the learned Govt. Pleader.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of this Court: State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei and others (AIR 1967 SC 1269), Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others {(1973 2 SCC 836) Chandran Kunhi v. State of Kerala and others (1976 KLT 908), J. Mohapatra and Co. and another v. State of Orissa and another {(1994) 4 SCC 103} and Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another {1989) 4 SCC 664)}, in support of the plea of bias.

7. Learned Govt. Pleader submitted that under the relevant rules of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. the Asst. Educational Officer is competent to give sanction and the said power has been exercised in terms of the statutory prescriptions and therefore the plea of bias cannot be sustained. It is pointed out that the charges against the petitioner were proved and therefore the order of punishment is liable to be upheld.

8. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the main charges leveled against the petitioner is one of misappropriation of noon meal food stuff. According to the petitioner, she rejoined duty on 20.9.2004 after the leave period from 13.9.2004 to 19.9.2004. When the rejoined duty, it was found that the food articles were not lifted as sufficient stock was not there in the concerned Maveli Store. Only on 24.9.2004 the food articles were released. What is alleged against her is that one bag of rice and certain quantity of green gram were separately kept in another room wherein damaged articles are kept and this was con