Judgment :- 1. The suspension of the petitioner, a teacher of the Alavil North Lower Primary School, Cannanore, by the Assistant Educational Officer, Pappinasseri, the 1st respondent, purporting to act under S.12A (2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, for short, the Act, is challenged in this petition on the ground that the requirement of proviso (a) to S.124 had not been satisfied. S.12A which was introduced into the Act by the Kerala Education (Amendment) Act 31 of 1969 is in these terms: 12A. 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 section (3), as the case may be, 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 section (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." 3. The power under sub-s. (2) of S.12A to suspend a teacher of an aided school is dependent only one factor that a disciplinary proceeding must be proposed to be taken against the teacher. The proviso in terms does not qualify sub-s. (2) of S.12A of the Act. On the other hand, by its wording, it limits its application to sub-s. (1) of S.12A. 4. The proviso in terms does not qualify sub-s. (2) of S.12A of the Act. On the other hand, by its wording, it limits its application to sub-s. (1) of S.12A. 4. No doubt, it is true that if the manager is intimated regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher he will have the discretion as envisaged by R.75 in Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, for short, the Rules, either to frame charges against the teacher or not to frame charges against the teacher. This discretion will depend onhis satisfaction after a consideration of the circumstances intimated to the manager by the Educational Officer (vide R.75(1) of the Rules). It is also true that even after charges have been framed against the teacher by the manager, on receipt of the written statement the Manager can still decide whether it is necessary to hold a formal enquiry or not, for, before an enquiry is ordered, the Manager has to be satisfied himself as to whether a formal enquiry should be held or not (vide Para.2 of sub-rule (1) of R.75 of the Rules). In cases where the Manager is satisfied that either no charge need be framed against a person or when he is satisfied after perusing the written statement that there Ss no case to go for a formal enquiry, he may drop the proceedings. In such cases, we conceive that R.75A will have no application, for, the refusal to frame the charge or to order a formal enquiry will not be a failure to initiate appropriate action against the teacher. We have referred to these rules only because, counsel for the petitioner contended that it can be said that disciplinary proceedings are proposed against a teacher only in cases where action under R.75A has been decided upon by the Government or the officer authorised. We conceive that the proposal would be there from the time it has been decided to intimate the Manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action. If there is no proposal to take disciplinary action at that time, there is no point in intimating the Manager about those circumstances. The fact that the option is given to the Manager to follow the procedure under R.75 does not mean, there had been no proposal to take disciplinary action by the Government or the authorised officer. If there is no proposal to take disciplinary action at that time, there is no point in intimating the Manager about those circumstances. The fact that the option is given to the Manager to follow the procedure under R.75 does not mean, there had been no proposal to take disciplinary action by the Government or the authorised officer. It is unnecessary to have any more material than what the Government or the authorised officer had at the time they or he wrote to the Manager pointing not the circumstances that disciplinary action must be taken in order to posit that there was a proposal to take disciplinary action. 5. The argument of counsel cannot be accepted. The view that we have taken had also been taken by Justice Poti in the decision in Krishnankutty Nair v. Director of Public Instruction reported in 1972 KLT. 204 and by Justice Nambiyar in A. Messlyandas v. State of Kerala & Others reported in 1972 KLT. 890. Justice Viswanatha Iyer in his order of reference has doubted the correctness of these decisions. With respect, we agree with the views expressed by Justice Poti and Justice Nambiyar independently and with equal respect we are unable to see any ground to doubt the correctness of those decisions. 6. We dismiss this petition but direct the parties to bear their costs. Dismissed.