Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is now a teacher of a Government Upper Primary School. Before that the petitioner was a teacher of an Aided Lower Primary School. The question that arises for consideration is whether disciplinary action can be taken against a Government servant for a misconduct while in service as an Aided School teacher. 2. The petitioner started service as a teacher in the S. N. C. M. Lowers Primary School, Neyyassery. She ceased to be a teacher of the above school on 28-3-1973. On 29-3-1973 she entered Government service as a P. D. teacher and is now working in the Government Upper Primary School, Panippara. The respondent-Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P-1 proceedings dated 1121975 placed the petitioner and two other Aided School teachers under suspension pending enquiry. What is revealed in Ext. P-1 is that one P.E. Narayanan, Headmaster, S. N. C.M. L. P. School, the petitioner and one P. P. Sankaran 'connived together to show inflated strength in the school to derive pecuniary advantage and in pursuance of the conspiracy forged the signature of a guardian and also misappropriated CARE food stuffs, etc.' The petitioner has denied the allegation in the original petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent justifying the suspension made by Ext. P-1. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit It is pointed out that the petitioner is one governed not by the Kerala Education Act and Rules, but by the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 3. Shri M. M. Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that no disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner who is now a Government servant for a misconduct while she was an Aided School teacher. According to the learned counsel, disciplinary action, if any, under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 can be taken against an Aided School teacher only as long as the teacher continues as an Aided School teacher. As the petitioner ceased to be an Aided School teacher on 28-3-1973 no action can be taken against the petitioner under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. In support of bis contention learned counsel relies on Peter v. District Collector, Ernakulam (1975 KLT. 692). As the petitioner ceased to be an Aided School teacher on 28-3-1973 no action can be taken against the petitioner under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. In support of bis contention learned counsel relies on Peter v. District Collector, Ernakulam (1975 KLT. 692). Learned counsel further contends that disciplinary action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules can be taken against a Government servant only for a misconduct while in Government service According to the learned counsel, as the misconduct alleged was not committed after the petitioner entered Government service no question of taking any action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules arises. Learned counsel then points out that if no disciplinary action is possible under the rules, there was no justification for the respondent to place the petitioner under suspension by Ext. P1. 4. Learned Government Pleader contends that even though the misconduct was while the petitioner was in service as an Aided School teacher, disciplinary action is possible now when the petitioner is a Government servant. In support of this contention learned Government Pleader refers to Ramakrishnan Thampi v. State of Kerala (1965 KLT 615). 5. Shri Abdul Aziz seems to be wellfounded in his contentions. As the petitioner has ceased to be an Aided School teacher no disciplinary action for the alleged misconduct while in service as an Aided School teacher can now be taken under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 or the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Not only that, no disciplinary action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is possible as long as the misconduct is not one committed by a Government servant. The position will be different if the Government servant is convicted in a criminal case even if the offence was committed before he joined Government service. This is because the conviction is under the penal law and it is not a penalty imposed in a disciplinary action. If no disciplinary action can be taken against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct it goes without saying that the suspension by Ext. P-1 cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, Ext. P-1 to the extent it affects the petitioner is quashed. It goes without saying that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service without any interruption from the date on which she was placed under suspension. 7. P-1 cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, Ext. P-1 to the extent it affects the petitioner is quashed. It goes without saying that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service without any interruption from the date on which she was placed under suspension. 7. The original petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.