S. Siri Jagan, J.

The petitioner is the manager of an aided school by name Seetharam Upper Primary School, Kunissery P.O., Palakkad District. The 3rd respondent is a Hindi Teacher of that school. She was suspended from service on certain allegations. Subsequently Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the 3rd respondent by the Manager. Since the 2nd respondent - Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur to whom the manager forwarded the memo of charges and connected papers for conducting an enquiry under Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, did not conduct enquiry pursuant thereto, the Manger approached this Court by filing O.P.No.10756/2002, in which by Ext.P1 (a) judgment dated 9.10.2003, this Court recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Assistant Educational Officer will take appropriate action to see that the enquiry is carried out in respect of the charge sheet and will also ensure that the said proceedings are completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Subsequently, the manager filed Ext.P2 styling it as Notes of Arguments citing 19 witnesses and 21 documents to be examined in the enquiry. The Assistant Educational Officer submitted Ext.P3 enquiry report wherein the A.E.O found that none of the charges levelled against the teacher was proved convincingly. Against Ext.P3 enquiry report, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R., taking the stand that the enquiry is not proper and valid. In the meanwhile, the teacher filed writ petition namely W.P.(C) No.3707/2005, wherein by Ext.P5 judgment dated 25.08.2005, this Court directed the Government to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 revision petition expeditiously. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 argument notes before the Government. But by Ext.P9, the Government rejected the revision petition and directed recovery of amounts paid to the teacher for the period during which she was kept out of service unauthorisedly from the manager. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order in this writ petition seeking the following relief :

"(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to call for the records leading to Exts.P3 & P9 and quash the same;"

2. The contentions of the petitioner is that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 revision petition has been considered by the Government in Ext.P9 order. He would contend that in Ext.P9 order, after detailing the case of the petitioner, no finding has been entered therein either way against the petitioner or in favour of the petitioner on the validity of the enquiry conducted by the Government. But a direction which was not the subject matter of the revision petition has been issued to recover the amounts from the manager which was unwarranted, that too without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against such action. According to the petitioner, the Government should have specifically considered the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P3 enquiry report is not valid and proper and entered a finding whether the enquiry is valid and proper, which finding is conspicuously absent in Ext.P9 order.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the 3rd respondent seeks to support Ext.P9 order. According to the counsel for the 3rd respondent, enquiry which resulted in Ext.P3 report was held validly and properly and although it is not so stated in so many words in Ext.P9, it is specifically stated therein that the revision petition stands rejected, from which it must be presumed that the Government has upheld the enquiry. The counsel further argues that the charges are so flimsy in nature and therefore what is contemplated is only proceedings under Rule 76 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R. and not under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R., in which case, what is required is only a summary procedure, which has been done by Ext.P3 and therefore