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 that the order was passed without the previous sanction of the District Educational Officer (for short ‘DEO’). So, the DEO was moved and the said officer granted sanction to impose a punishment of removal from service on the appellant, by Ext.P10 dated 5.4.2002. Thereafter, the Manager passed a fresh order, Ext.P11 dated 15.4.2002, removing her from service. The appellant challenged Ext.P11 before the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki. The said officer, after hearing both sides, by Ext.P12 affirmed the finding of guilt of the accused, but reduced the punishment to one of barring one increment without cumulative effect. The Manager and the appellant filed Revision Petitions before the Government, challenging Ext.P12. The Government, after hearing both sides, by Ext.P15 order dated 3.8.2007 affirmed Ext.P12.

3. Challenging Exts.P12 and P15, the 1st respondent Manager filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition quashing Exts.P12 and P15. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal.

4. We heard, Sri. C.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. We also heard the learned counsel for the Manager and the learned Government Pleader, Smt. R. Bindu, for the official respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the enquiry was held even before the receipt of her reply to Ext.P19 charges. Further, the enquiry was held without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (for short ‘KER’). The procedure therein will apply to holding disciplinary enquiry against non-teaching staff also, by virtue of Rule 7 of Chapter XXIVB of the KER. The learned counsel also pointed out that all the charges contained in Ext.P19, except the 5th charge, are vague and could not have been the subject-matter of disciplinary action. Even the finding on charge No.5 is not in conformity with the allegations in the memo of charges. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the Manager, on the other hand, supported the judgment under appeal. The materials on record would show that the presence of the appellant cannot be tolerated in an educational institution and therefore, she has been rightly removed from service. The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned orders of the Deputy Director and the Government.

6. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials on record. Rule 75 of Chapter XIVA of the KER provides that before the Manager orders an enquiry into the charges against the delinquent, he should examine the written statement of the incumbent and decide whether it i