IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10703 of 2003 Shreeman Narayan Ram, son of late Maach Narayan Ram, resident of village Hathni, Police Station Nokha, District Rohtas, at present posted as Headmaster, Primary School, Pipradih (presently suspended), Police Station Nasriganj, District Rohtas. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Development Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Rohtas. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Nasriganj, District Rohtas. 5. The Zonal Education Extension Officer, Dehri, Rohtas. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 17.09.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That by way of the present writ petition Petitioner creaves indulgence before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of “Certiorary” for quashing the order vide memo No.203 dated 10.2.03 (Annexure-9) passed by the Respondent no.3 (District Superintendent of Education Rohtas) by order of respondent no.2 whereby whereunder Suspension of the petitioner has been revoked conditional, two increment hold up (b) no payment of salary during Suspension period and not calculate in pension of petitioner also for quashing the order dated 29.12.01 2 vide memo No. 3558 passed by the Respondent no.3 Annexure-4 by which petitioner has been Suspended and a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him the petitioner further pray for a direction to the respondents to pay the entire dues of salary with effect from January 2002 to till today.” As with regard to the aforementioned prayers and the averments made in the writ application, this Court, by an order dated 15.3.2004, had directed the respondents to explain their stand. The order dated 15.3.2004, being relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:- “The petitioner, Headmaster, submits that he was placed under suspension and a notice to show cause was issued to him, the petitioner submitted his show cause but thereafter no enquiry was made, no enquiry report was submitted and all of a sudden the order Annexure-9 was issued against his interest. Let the respondents file their show cause. They shall be obliged to inform this Court that after submission of the show cause by the petitioner whether any enquiry in accordance with law was made or not and if yes whether the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner or not and if no enquiry was made how could order contained in 3 Annexure-9 be issued.” The respondents, thereafter, have filed their counter affidavit and a copy whereof was also supplied on the counsel for the petitioner on 22.7.2004, wherein, full details of the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner has been given in the following terms:- “8. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was suspended through memo no. 3558 dated 29.12.2001 and Area Education Officer, Behri was appointed as Conducting Officer, however, subsequently the conducting officer was changed vide memo no. 822 dated 2.3.2002 and Block Education Extension Officer, Nauhatta was appointed as Conducting Officer. 9. That it is humbly submitted that the inquiry officer vide his letter no.77 dated 22.7.2002 submitted his inquiry report in detail and found all the charges to be proved and ultimately the inquiry officer recommended for taking stern action against the petitioner. 10. That after considering the show cause filed by the petitioner and the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority decided to ask second show cause notice from the petitioner vide memo no. 2670 dated 4 29.7.2002 on the ground that several serious allegation was leveled against the petitioner. 11. That it is submitted that the inquiry officer again vide his letter no. 92 dated 18.8.2002 submitted his report stating therein that all the charges against the petitioner is proved and recommended for stern action against the petitioner. 12. That it is humbly submitted that thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a letter vide letter no. 3402 dated 11.10.2002 annexing copy of inquiry report to the petitioner asking him to reply point wise as to why not strong action be taken against you and the said copy of the inquiry report has already been sent to the petitioner through registered post on 18.10.2002 but the petitioner did not choose to respond on the said inquiry report. 13. That in absence of any reply filed by the petitioner the deponent with the approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee, Rohtas decided to conclude the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly the deponent revoked the suspension by awarding the punishment as indicated in memo no. 203 dated 5 10.2.2003 (annexure 9 to the writ petition). 14. That it is most humbly submitted that the punishment have been awarded to the petitioner after following full fledged departmental inquiry in which sufficient opportunity of explanation was given to the petitioner. 15. That it is further submitted that under the clause of Bihar Nationalized Primary School Teachers Transfer and disciplinary Action Rule 2002 there is a provision of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the decision of the District Educating Establishment Committee and the petitioner has not filed any appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and directly come to this Hon’ble Court without exhausting the alternative remedy.” It would thus become clear that the query made by this Court stands answered, inasmuch as, the full procedure of departmental proceeding was followed before inflicting the order of punishment. That being so, when the petitioner also had not chosen to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and had straightway moved this Court against the order of punishment, this writ application, 6 on the face of record, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)