Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant was the 4th respondent in the writ Petition. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the case are the following:

The appellant is a Peon working in the school managed by the 1st respondent. She was suspended from service by the Manager in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings on 16.7.2001. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether permission was granted by the Educational Officer, to keep her under suspension beyond 15 days. Since the same is not relevant in this case, it is unnecessary to go into that controversy. She was served with Ext.P19 memo of charges dated 10.8.2001. She submitted her reply, Ext.P20, on 28.8.2001. The Assistant Educational Officer (for short ‘AEO’) held an enquiry into the charges on 21.8.2001 and furnished Ext.P6 report dated 11.9.2001 to the Manager, finding the appellant guilty. Based on that enquiry report, the Manager issued Ext.P7 notice dated 4.10.2001, proposing to remove her from service. The appellant submitted Ext.P8 reply. On finding the reply not satisfactory, the Manager removed here from service by Ext.P9 order dated 17.11.2001. It appears tha