JUDGMENT Chandrasekara Menon, J. 1. The petitioner who is the Headmaster of the Upper Primary School questions the legality and validity of the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Ernakulam dated 11th June 1975 marked as Ext. P-7 in the case by which in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12 (A) of Kerala Education Act (shortly stated the Act) and Rule 75 (A) Chapter XIVA K.E.R., the charges specified therein are framed against the petitioner and he has been directed to submit his written statement of defence within the time prescribed in the notice. He has also been directed in that order to inform, the Office of the Regional Deputy Director whether he desires to be heard in person in connection with the matter. Ext. P-7 proceeds to point out that if nothing is heard from the petitioner within the stipulated time of 15 days from the date of receipt of the intimation, action will be pursued presuming that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension as per the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction on 13th May 1974. This order of suspension was issued pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners for certain alleged misconduct on his part. The petitioner filed O, P. 2257 of 1974 before this court challenging the order of suspension issued by the first respondent. The original petition though it was referred to a Division Bench was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. The order of suspension has been stayed when the original petition was admitted but subsequently it was vacated. The Assistant Educational Officer, Tripunithura by his proceedings dated 11th October 1974 implemented the order of suspension issued against the petitioner with retrospective effect from 18th October 1974. 3. The first respondent by his proceedings dated 10th January 1975 intimated the Manager of the school 4th respondent regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the petitioner and also directing the Manager to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the allegation of misconduct made against him. The allegations of misconduct are detailed in the 1st respondent's proceedings in the following manner: "1. Irregularities in the special fee account: Collection. The allegations of misconduct are detailed in the 1st respondent's proceedings in the following manner: "1. Irregularities in the special fee account: Collection. For the fee collections made on 6th July 1973 from 24 pupils (22 from Standard VI and 2 from Standard VII) it is seen that the fine has been realised at 4 paise only whereas the Headmasters ought to have realised fine at 0.08 paise. Thus there is a short of 0.96 paise in the collection towards fines. Similarly, for the collections made on 20th November 1973 also there is a deficiency of Rs. 2.88 towards the collection of fines (at 4 paise for 72 pupils) the headmaster has been asked to credit the above sum of Rs. 3.84 (2.88+0.96) to the special fee account. On a scrutiny of the special fee account it is seen that the collections from pupils are not seen remitted in the Savings Bank account then and there but cash balance ranging from Rs. 237 to Rs. 46 are kept for longer periods and expenditure incurred from the above which is contradictory to the provisions of G.O. (P) 46/69 dated, 24th February 1969. The Headmaster has been, asked to submit his explanation for the irregularity. Expenditure. Though the expenditure for various items has, been approved by the special fee, advisory committee the undermentioned items have been objected for the reasons noted against them and the Headmaster has been directed to refund the amount and report the credit particulars. Library fee fund account. Payment towards the cost of newspapers made on 25th July 1973 Rs. 16.80, on 29th August 1973 Rs. 8.40, on 27th September 1973 Rs. 8.40, on 27th October 1973 Rs. 8.40 and on 27th November 1973 Rs. 9 (Total Rs. 51) as there is no reading, room facilities in the school for the pupils. Stationery fee fund account. Printing charges paid toward test papers on 25th July 1973, 29th August 1973, 27th September 1973, 27th October 1973 and 27th November 1973 each Rs. 45 totalling to Rs. 225 has been objected as it is beyond budget provision and as the diversions from other funds have been made without taking into consideration the necessity and use of other funds. The Headmaster has been asked to refund the same also to the special fee fund of the school. 2. The Headmaster unauthorisedly collected money from the pupils for printing question papers etc. The Headmaster has been asked to refund the same also to the special fee fund of the school. 2. The Headmaster unauthorisedly collected money from the pupils for printing question papers etc. 3. The Headmaster stopped CARE feeding in the school on 8th March 1974 without previous permission of the Assistant Educational Officer. 4. The Headmaster has collected money from the teachers every month at the time of disbursement of salary. Certain teachers have given written statement to the effect. The Headmaster has stated that it is not possible for him to run the institution with the maintenance grant sanctioned from the department. Hence he is utilising the amount so collected from the teachers for buying stationery and for meeting the T.A. of the peon for treasury duty etc. This is unauthorised. There are complaints from the teachers of the school that they are not being paid their salary in time. It is stated that the Headmaster is purposely delaying the submission of salary bills to the Assistant Educational Officer. The stand taken by the Headmaster is that he is not prepared to draw the salary of the teachers in time and they can approach the department authorities if they are found of getting their salary in time. This order led the Manager of the school to initiate proceedings against the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 75 (1) (a) of the K.E.R. Although Ext. P-1 proceeding purports to be an intimation to the Manager regarding the circumstances, requiring disciplinary action against the petitioner, the said proceedings contained specific items of charges levelled against the petitioner and also a statement of allegation on the basis of which the said charges were formulated. The Manager furnished a copy of Ext. P-1 proceedings to the petitioner and after inviting his attention to the specific charges contained in the proceedings, the Manager also directed the petitioner to submit his explanations to the said charges, by his memo dated 22nd January 1975, copy of which has been marked as Ext. P-2 in the case. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation with reference to the statement of allegations. Ext. P-3 is a copy of his explanations wherein he stated in regard to the charges: "1. As per normal practice, a fine of 4 paise per pupil was collected. But when the A.E.O., Tripunithura pointed out this minor lapse, I have immediately credited the amount of Rs. Ext. P-3 is a copy of his explanations wherein he stated in regard to the charges: "1. As per normal practice, a fine of 4 paise per pupil was collected. But when the A.E.O., Tripunithura pointed out this minor lapse, I have immediately credited the amount of Rs. 384 on 8th April 1974 to the special fee account to make good of my innocent omission. As regards non-remittance of special fee collect ion in the post office SB account in time, I submit that it is happened on rare occasions for meeting urgent expenditure in the school and that too in the interest of service and that there is inordinate delay in effecting withdrawals from the post office to meet such inevitable payments. Moreover, it is a branch post office where advance notice of one week is required for any withdrawal. From this it is clear that the amount involved was actually accounted for on the dates and the funds utilised solely for the school expenditure and that too properly accounted. I will be more careful to comply with the provisions of the G.O. strictly and the omission involved may kindly be excused. Library account. I admit that there is no special reading room for keeping library book and display of newspapers. But these are kept in office room and fully utilised by the public during their leisure hours. But when A.E.O. pointed out that it was objectionable to contribute for newspapers as there was no special room for the purpose, I immediately complied with his instructions and credited Rs. 51 from my on packet on 8th April 1974; even though it was already spent as contribution to these newspapers. Stationary fee fund account. A sum of Rs. 225 has been spent for printing question papers, it may please be noted that proper accounts have been maintained for the purpose and the advisory committee of special fee of the school have approved the diversion of the fund for the purpose. The amount was spent with good intentions. But when the A.E.O., objected to it, I credited this amount also from my pocket, even though it was spent bona fide in the interest of the school and pupils. 2. At no time money has been collected from the pupils for priming question papers. 3. The amount was spent with good intentions. But when the A.E.O., objected to it, I credited this amount also from my pocket, even though it was spent bona fide in the interest of the school and pupils. 2. At no time money has been collected from the pupils for priming question papers. 3. The stock of CARE feed was exhausted on 6th March 1974, Since immediate replenishment was not available at A.E.O. Office, the feeding could not be continued with effect from 7th March 1974. In any case it was impracticable and uneconomical to fetch and supply CARE food for a few days, since feeding was to stop from 15th March 1974. Further the cook had also deserted the job. 4. The allegation that I have received money from teachers every month at the time of disbursement of salary is incorrect and baseless. Proper stamped acquittance roll for the disbursement of salary in time are neatly and correctly maintained in the school and were forwarded in time to the A.E.O., Tripunithura along with the salary bills. 5. As regards delay in submission of bills and prompt disbursement of monthly salary to teachers, the record will speak for itself except on very few occasions when the necessary bill forms were not made available.� 5. The Manager after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner thought that there was no ease for ordering a formal enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly the Manager dropped the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and submitted a detailed report to the first respondent recording his comments on the various counts of charges levelled against the petitioner and stating reasons for his conclusion that a formal enquiry need not be held into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Ext. P-4 is the copy of the Manager report. This was submitted in the first week of February, 1975. For a long spell of time there was no reply to this which compelled the Manager to send a reminder to the first respondent requesting for early action in the matter for reinstating the petitioner in service. Another reminder was also sent by the Manager because of inaction on the part of the authorities. The final reminder was on 12th May 1975. After considerable delay Ext. P-7 memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent. Another reminder was also sent by the Manager because of inaction on the part of the authorities. The final reminder was on 12th May 1975. After considerable delay Ext. P-7 memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent. A copy of the statement of allegations accompanied Ext. P-7. A copy of the same has been produced in the O.P. as Ext. P-7 (a). 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Ext. P-7 is without jurisdiction and is result of an arbitrary action by the 2nd respondent Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and the Manager. According to the petitioner learned counsel Mr. Sukumaran Nayar the provisions contained in section 12A of the Act conform jurisdiction on the Government or an officer authorised by the Government in that behalf to take disciplinary proceedings against a teacher in an aided school and to impose upon him all or any of the penalties specified in the Rules and made under die Act. The provisions contained in proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of section 12A of the Act nuke it abundantly clear that the aforesaid power of the Government or the authorised officer can be exercised only after intimating the Manager regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action against the teacher concerned and also after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity of taking disciplinary action. The provisions contained in Rule 75 (A) of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R. provide that if the Manager does not initiate appropriate action against the teacher within a month from the date of intimation as specified in section 12A of the Act or after the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, he is not completing the disciplinary proceedings within 2 months from the date of initiation of the disciplinary action, then the Government or the authorised officer as the case may be shall take appropriate disciplinary action against the teacher concerned. It is submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 75 (A) of K.E.R. have no application to the facts of the present case for the obvious reasons that the Manager really did initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 75 of the said Rules. 7. It is submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 75 (A) of K.E.R. have no application to the facts of the present case for the obvious reasons that the Manager really did initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 75 of the said Rules. 7. A Full Bench of this court in A.E.O. Koothuparamba v. P. R. Mannu, 1969 K.L.T. 556 held that rules 67, 75 and 77 of the K.E.R., 1959 as amended in 1965 to the extent they constitute original authority in officers (other than the Manager of the school) to take disciplinary action and to impose penalties on teachers (inclusive of Headmasters) in aided schools are repugnant to the provisions of the Act and hence void to that extent. This led to the amendment of the Act by the Amendment Act 31 of 1969, The statement of objects and reasons of the amendment was "In pursuance of the provisions in section 12 of the Kerala Education Act, 1953, the Government prescribed in Chapter XIVA the procedure for taking disciplinary action against teachers of aide schools. In Chapter XIVA provision has been made to the effect that the Manager or Educational Officer or Regional Deputy Director or Director of Public Instruction or Government may at any time place a teacher under suspension subject to certain conditions being satisfied. Chapter XIVA also empowers departmental authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings suo motu and to impose penalties on aided school staff. The authority of the department to take disciplinary action was questioned in High Court in several case. The High Court held that rules 67, 75 and 77 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, to the extent they conferred original authority on officers other than the Managers of the schools to take disciplinary action and impose penalties on teachers inclusive of Headmasters in aided schools, are repugnant to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and therefore to that extent void. This decision implied that the departmental authorities did not have powers to initiate disciplinary action suo motu and impose penalties on the staff of aided schools. The result of the decision of the High Court was that the departmental officers were not in a position to take disciplinary action against the staff of aided schools even in well-deserved cases. This decision implied that the departmental authorities did not have powers to initiate disciplinary action suo motu and impose penalties on the staff of aided schools. The result of the decision of the High Court was that the departmental officers were not in a position to take disciplinary action against the staff of aided schools even in well-deserved cases. The only course of action open to the department was to bring to the notice of managements the irregularities committed by the staff and leave it to them to initiate disciplinary action. It has in several cases come to the notice of Government that the Managers were reluctant to take action against erring staff and even if they took action, the punishment they inflicted was quite in adequate. In some cases the Manager may also be the Headmaster and in such cases the management cannot initiate action against the petitioner. There are other cases where the Managers are related to the member of staff and are not inclined to initiate disciplinary action. In the best interest of administration and discipline in aided schools Government felt that the position could not be allowed to continue as the staff in aided schools are paid direct from the Government treasury and that therefore the Government and the department had to be endowed with powers to interfere promptly in cases where serious dereliction of duty and commission of grave irregularities of teachers in aided schools are bought to notice. Accordingly the Kerala Education (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance 1969 (3 of 1969) was promulgated by the Governor on 5th day of July 1969. The bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature.� Section 12A so introduced reads as follows: "12A. (1) Disciplinary powers of Government over teachers of aided schools. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 11 or section 12 and subject to such rules as maybe 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 (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-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.� 8. Section 12A (1) is in wide terms and would empower Government and its officers to take disciplinary proceedings and impose the penalties (all or any) specified in the rules. But when as per the amended provisions rules were framed to carry into effect the amendment to the Act, what is provided therein curtails the disciplinary powers of Government or authorised officer to cases where a Manager does not initiate appropriate action against the teacher, within a month from the date of intimation as specified in section 12A or after intimation of disciplinary proceedings he is not completing the disciplinary proceedings within two months from the date of initiation of the disciplinary action. Rule 75A of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. is the relevant provision. As per amended Rule 75 under sub-rule (1) (a) as it stands now the charge can be framed against a tea her only if the Manager is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, whereas under sub-rule 1 (a) as it stood prior to the amendment dated 10th March 1970 it was enough if the Educational Officer or any higher authority or any authority empowered by Government was satisfied. But that rule to the extent it constituted original authority in officers (other than Managers of the school) to take disciplinary action and to impose penalties on teachers in aided schools were held repugnant to the provisions of the Act as it then stood in 1958 K.L.T. 556. Though subsequently section 12A was introduced. But that rule to the extent it constituted original authority in officers (other than Managers of the school) to take disciplinary action and to impose penalties on teachers in aided schools were held repugnant to the provisions of the Act as it then stood in 1958 K.L.T. 556. Though subsequently section 12A was introduced. Rule 75 was amended as stated earner if the Manager is intimated regarding the circumstances requiring disciplinary action as against the teacher he will have the discretionary action as envisaged by Rule 75, either to frame charge against the teacher or not to frame charges against the teacher. This discretion will depend on his satisfaction after a consideration of the circumstances intimated to the Manager by the Educational Officer. 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 as would be evident from paragraph 2 of sub-rule (1) of Rule 75. Where the Manager is satisfied that no charges need be framed or when he is satisfied after perusing the written statement, that there is no ease to go for a formal enquiry, he has got the liberty to drop the proceedings. In such cases Rule 75A cannot have any application, for refusal to frame the charge or to order a formal enquiry will not be a failure to take appropriate action giants the teacher see in this connection decision of a Division Bench of this court in Sreedharan v. A.E.O., Pappinisseri 1974 K.L.T. 53. When the Manager asked the petitioner to submit explanation to charges mentioned in Ext. P-1 the Manager has initated appropriate action. Ext. P-4 would also show that the Manager has come to definite conclusions in the proceedings after considering the teacher explanation so that there is no scope for invoking that provision of Rule 75 A which empowers the Government or the authorised officer to take appropriate disciplinary action themselves in cases where the Manager is not completing the disciplinary proceedings within two months of the initiation of the disciplinary action. No doubt, as I stated earlier and strongly put forth by Sri Meloth, learned Government Pleader, section 12A (1) is in widest terms empowering the Government or its authorised officer to take disciplinary action against a teacher of an aided school and to impose punishment on him. But the power as the section states is subject to such rules as may be prescribed. Therefore, in the light of Rules 75 and 75A, it cannot be said that Ext. P-7 proceedings have got any statutory sanction. Prescription of a proper rule might have helped the Government to intervene even in circumstances as in this case. Moreover, the power of revision given to Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of K.E.R. is in unequivocal terms with respect to any order of a subordinate authority and the Manager decision is the derision of a subordinate authority under the Rules. That does not mean, however, that Government or its authorised officer can initiate disciplinary proceedings against a teacher of an aided school against the statutory rules. In the instant case, I am also of the view that the Manager cannot be said to have acted in an improper or illegal manner. It cannot be said that he has acted irresponsibly in accepting the explanation given by the teacher. His findings could certainly be justified on the records. Therefore, I allow this O. P., but in the circumstances of the case without costs.