IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13520 of 2001 MD.NOORUL HASSAN, S/O SK. ENAMUL HAQUE OF VILLAGE- MAJGAMA, POST-BHUNA, P.S.-MAHALGAON, DISTRICT-ARARIA AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEAD MASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, SONAPUR ANCHAL AMOUR-I, DISTRICT-ARARIA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNIA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PURNIA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AMOUR, DISTRICT- PURNIA. 5. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, AMOUR, DISTRICT-PURNIA. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BAISI, PURNIA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 02.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 5.7.2001, as contained in Annexure-6, by which as a consequence of the departmental enquiry punishment has been awarded to the petitioner to the effect that for the period of suspension he will not be entitled to anything else than the subsistence allowance paid to him. From the punishment order, it appears that there had been a surprise inspection of the school on 24.3.2000 by the B.D.O who found the petitioner absent. He submitted his report on the basis of which the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was 2 started against him and the Block Education Extension Officer was appointed as enquiry officer. Enquiry officer submitted his report on the basis of which this punishment order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 24.3.2000 was a Friday and as the school concerned was a minority school in the District of Purnea, Friday was weekly holiday of the school. He submits that since Friday was holiday, no charge could be levelled against him for being absent from the school and, therefore, the very basis of the enquiry was non est. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents along with which inspection report of inspection held by B.E.E.O. on 22.08.2000 has been annexed as Annexure-A. In this report he said that during the inspection certain lapses were found. It is said in the counter affidavit that although enquiry officer did find that 24.3.2000 was a holiday and, therefore, the petitioner could not be held guilty for his absence from the school, but in view of this enquiry report as contained in Annexure-D, the respondent, District Magistrate 3 held the petitioner guilty of the charges and, therefore, the punishment order was passed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that on the date the inspection was held i.e. on 22.08.2000, the petitioner was under suspension and, therefore, any irregularity found on that date could not be attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, he also submits that for these lapses found on that date no charge was framed against the petitioner. He points out that the suspension of the petitioner and the enquiry was only confined to his alleged absence from his school on 24.3.2000. Since 24.3.2000 was admittedly a weekly holiday of the school, the very ground of his suspension and departmental proceeding was non est. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not denied by learned counsel for the State. From the records also it appears that the order of suspension, entire proceeding and the punishment order is confined to the charge of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from the school on 24.3.2000. Since admittedly 24.3.2000 was holiday, the very basis of the 4 suspension and proceeding is non est. As a result, the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-6, itself becomes illegal and bad and is fit to be quashed. In the result, considering the facts and circumstances noticed above, the writ application is allowed, the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the service of the petitioner during the suspension period as on regular service and pay the remaining amount of regular salary admissible to the petitioner during the suspension period by adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid to him, if any. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)