WP(C) 3877/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel, Education Department representing the official respon dents 1,2,4,5 and 6. Mr. HK Barman, learned Govt. Advocate appears for Deputy Co mmissioner, Nagaon (Respondent No.3). The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure-L), whereby he has been placed under suspension from the post of Headmaster of Samarali Tiniali ME School under Lanka Block allegedly on the ground of non-implementation of Mid D ay Meal Scheme in the school headed by him. Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only because o f the illegal activities of respondent No. 7, who is the President of the School Managing Committee, the various schemes in the school could not be implemented and it is pointed out that it is the petitioner himself, who by his communicatio n dated 25.2.2010 had made a complaint on the activities of the President. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure-F) shows that the President was in the habi t of usurping the money and material including the Mid Day meal rice by storing them in his house. It is contended that despite several complaints made by the p etitioner starting from January, 2010 onwards, the higher ups in the department failed to take any action to help the petitioner, to execute the Mid Day Meal Sc heme. It appears from the materials on record that intimation about the President keep ing the rice in his own house was intimated to the DEEO, Nagaon and a resolution was also passed on 7.3.20-10 by the special meeting of the general body, where members of the Managing Committee as well as the local residents numbering about 69 persons were present. All of them expressed their lack of confidence against the President and sought action against him by the authorities. In the counter affidavit filed by the DEEO, Assam, it is averred that the petiti oner as the Headmaster was primarily responsible to implement the Mid Day Meal S cheme and due to his default he has been placed under suspension. But the counte r affidavit does not take into account the difficulties placed by the President in the petitioner’s implementation of the scheme. Therefore, I am of the conside red opinion that interference should be made with the suspension order passed by the DEEO, Nagaon against the petitioner. Accordingly the suspension order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure-L) stands quashed. It is also seen that the DEEO, Assam by his communication dated 30.6.2010 had di rected the DEEO, Nagaon to ensure proper implementation of the Mid Day Meal Sche me in the Samarali Tiniali ME School and has entrusted the Sub Inspector of Scho ols to monitor the said activity. Since the Court has found that because of hurdles placed by the President, the H eadmaster was not able to implement the Mid Day Meal Scheme, the disciplinary pr oceeding against the petitioner may now appropriately be resolved, by the DEEO, taking this relevant aspect into account. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at motion stage.