IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15064 of 2007 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH son of late Ram Lakhan Singh, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Ajwan, P.O. Ajwan, P.S. Naubatpur, district Patan, resident of Mohalla Teachers Colony, Thana Road, West of Zila School Naubatpur, P.O. and P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary Cum Commissioner Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Patna Collectoriate Compound, Patna. 4. Area Education Officer, Danapur Cum Enquiry Officer Danapur, District Patna. 5. Area Education Officer, Masaurdhi, Patna. 6. Head Master Cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School Kateshar Bihta, Patna. 7. Head Master, Middle School, Ajwan, District Patna. ----------- 2 28.09.2010 Counsel for the petitioner as with regard to the following relief:- “(i)For quashing of the order of the respondent no.3 issued vide memo no.1847 dated 24.3.2004 whereby salary during suspension period w.e.f. 11.4.2000 to 23.3.2004 except subsistence allowance has been denied and one increment has been stopped with non cumulative effect. (ii)For a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining salary for the period w.e.f. 11.4.2000 to 23.3.2004 to the petitioner after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid. (iii)For a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining 25% subsistence allowance after one year of suspension as per order dated 24.3.2004.” would frankly concede that the impugned order of punishment passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna is an appealable order in terms of the Disciplinary, Control and Appeal Rules for the teachers of Elementary Schools and therefore he may be given permission to file such an appeal. In the opinion of this Court prayer of counsel for the 2 petitioner is very reasonable and therefore this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty of assailing the impugned order in an appeal. Further grievance of the petitioner that though the order of punishment on the basis of which payment of subsistence allowance was to the tune of 75%, but the petitioner was paid his subsistence allowance at the rate of 50%, can however be looked into by the District Superintendent of Education himself, inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot be deprived with the amount of subsistence allowance which has not been withheld by order of punishment. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is permitted to be withdrawn. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)