IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9311 of 2008 RAMBALI RAI, S/O LATE SHEO MANGAL RAI, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-KHAMHAURI, P.S.-MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 12.09.2011 Petitioner, a retired Headmaster of an Upgraded Middle School, has filed this writ application challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Siwan dated 18.01.2007, as contained in Annexure-1, by which, on the conclusion of a departmental proceeding, he has been inflicted with some punishments. He has also challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 18.03.2008, as contained in Annexure-2, passed in his Appeal No.261 of 2007. Besides other grounds, challenge of petitioner to the order of the District Magistrate is on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Bihar State Nationalized Primary Schools Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceeding) Rules, 2002, the District Magistrate has no power to pass any orders of punishment on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, inflicting any punishment 2 as enumerated under Rule 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rules, it is only the Deputy Development Commissioner or the District Superintendent of Education who can inflict a minor punishment after obtaining an explanation from the delinquent. For major punishment it is the Deputy Development Commissioner who can pass orders after issuing a second show cause notice to the delinquent in the light of the report of the Inquiry Officer. Against the orders, an appeal lie before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Rule 23. He submits that under the Rules, the District Magistrate had not been conferred any power. Hence, his order as impugned is totally without jurisdiction. He submits that so far as punishment nos.2 and 3 are concerned they have become infructuous as the petitioner has superannuated in 2008 itself. It is only the first punishment by which petitioner has been debarred from getting anything else towards his salary except, subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension which adversely affected him. On the last date, learned counsel for the State had prayed for a pass over of the case submitting that he will produce some case-laws and 3 some subsequent government circulars to show that the District Magistrate had been conferred power to pass orders in the disciplinary proceeding against the Headmaster or teachers of the Primary and Middle Schools. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed in this case, although the writ application was filed on 01.07.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of learned Advocate General and no learned counsel for the respondents is present also today to assist this Court. In the circumstances, there being no challenge to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order of the District Magistrate, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. The appellate order, as contained in Annexure-2, is therefore also quashed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)