Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who is the Headmaster of the Panchayat School, Poovachal, challenges Ext. P3 proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction by which he was placed under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, under S.12A of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. S.12-A reads: "12-A. Disciplinary powers of Government over teachers of aided schools (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S.11 or S.12, and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Government or such officer not below the rank of an Educational Officer, as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have power to take disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the rules made under this Act. (2) The Government or the officer authorised under sub-s. (1), as the case may be may suspend a teacher of an aided school when any disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be taken against him under that sub-section or when such disciplinary proceedings are pending: Provided that (a) before exercising the powers under sub s. (1) the Government or the authorised officer as the case may be, may intimate the manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned and give the manager a reasonable opportunity of taking disciplinary action; and (b) if the manager fails to take appropriate action it shall be open to the Government or the authorised officer to take appropriate disciplinary action against the teacher concerned." 2. The validity of the section itself was attacked, but no arguments were addressed to substantiate the challenge. Therefore, the only question is whether the exercise of the power of suspension was valid and proper. Sub clause (1) of the section gives power to the Government or the officers authorised by them to take disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of an aided school and to impose upon him any of the penalties provided in the rules made under this Act R.65 of Chapter XIV-A specifies the penalties which can be imposed upon teachers of aided schools. The proviso to S.12-A on its express language has relation only to the exercise of the power under sub-s. (1) and not to the exercise of the power under sub-s. (2). The proviso to S.12-A on its express language has relation only to the exercise of the power under sub-s. (1) and not to the exercise of the power under sub-s. (2). The result is that when, under sub-s. (2), the Government or the officers empowered, proceed to suspend a teacher when disciplinary proceedings are proposed or pending, they are not fettered by sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of the proviso. This conclusion stands only re-inforced by the provision of Chapter XIV-A, R.67. Clause (I) of the rule gives the Manager the right of placing a teacher under suspension when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending. Clause (2) of the rule gives the same power to the Government or the officers authorised by them. The power conferred is concurrent. There is nothing in the rule making the Government's exercise of the power conditional upon a prior option to exercise the same being given to the Manager. 3. In the circumstances, on the language of the section and the Rule, and as long as they have not been established to be ultra vires, the power of suspension exercised in this case is proper and correct. I dismiss this writ petition, but make no order as to costs.