WP(C) 1186/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same very petitioner, who is the Headmaster of No.312 Batamari L.P. School. While in the first writ petition be ing W.P. (C) No.1186/2007, he has challenged the order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexur e-3 to the writ petition) by which he has been transferred from the school to an other school. In the second writ petition being W.P. (C) No.1449/2007, he has c hallenged the legality and validity of the order dated 14.3.2007 by which he has been placed under suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that both the impugned orders have been issued by the authorities as a measure of victimization and due to extraneous consideration. According to the petitioner, there is no material to transfer him from the school and place him under suspension. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in both the writ petitions, it is their stand that the petitioner has been transferred from the school due to misappropriation of fund to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and so also, m isappropriation of dietary articles relating to mid-day meal of the school. According to the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 14.3.2007 to frustrate the interim order passed by this Cou rt on 12.3.2007 in the first writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No.1186/2007. By the said order, the impugned order of transfer dated 28.2.2007 has been stayed prima rily on the ground that there is a ban on transfer of teachers as per the circu lar issued by the Directorate of Elementary Education. In the affidavit-in-oppo sition, nothing has been stated about such ban on transfer. The petitioner has filed affidavits-in-reply to the affidavits filed by the respondents. I have perused the same. I have also gone through the records p roduced by Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Mr. D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being no material and the entire episode being the creation of the District Ele mentary Education Officer, Nagaon and there being no cross verification of the v eracity or otherwise of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, the impugne d orders are liable to be interferred with. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Das, lea rned Standing Counsel, Education Department submits that there being, prima faci e, satisfaction arrived at by the authorities on the allegation of irregularitie s committed by the petitioner, the petitioner was first transferred and thereaft er, he has been placed under suspension. The records produced by Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Dep artment reveals that a note was put up on 14.3.2007 before the authority pointi ng out the complaint lodged against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of Rs.20,000/- from the school building construction grant and irregularity in dis tribution of rice for mid-day meal. The complaint was made by 7 individuals on 18.3.2007. It is solely on the basis of the complaint, the note was put up for placing the petitioner under suspension without any cross verification regardin g veracity or otherwise of the complaint so lodged. It is on that basis the pet itioner has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 14.3.2007. The complaint was lodged by one Md. Abdul Maleque and others and the same was re ceived on 14.3.2007 and on the same very date, the petitioner was placed under s uspension. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, various documents hav e been annexed showing that some of the alleged signatories of the complaint, i n fact did not sign the complaint lodged against the petitioner. In this conne ction, certain affidavits have been filed by the members of the Managing Commit tee, who allegedly lodged the complaint. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has also submitted statement r egarding monthly expenditure of mid-day meal. He has also enclosed a certificat e from the Gaon Burah certifying proper distribution of mid-day meal. The peti tioner has also enclosed the statements of accounts relating to the school fund and the same was verified by the S.I. of Schools and he certified the statements of accounts to be correct and true. The same was done on 10.4.2007. All thes e materials were not considered while placing the petitioner under suspension an d transferring him from the school. The grounds for placing the petitioner under suspension as well as trans ferring him from the school to another school is one and the same. However, the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department does not indicate any cross verification of the allegation made. Merely because a compl aint was submitted, the authority ought not to have taken recourse to the drast ic action without any cross verification of the materials on record. From the a ffidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner and the materials furnished by him, it appears that there is room to believe that the complaint lodged against the pet itioner is fictitious. While it is true that the authorities are the best judge to transfer tea chers and to take disciplinary action, but at the same time, the same can be tak en recourse to upon proper verification of the materials and not on conjectures and surmises. In view of the above, I direct the Commissioner and Secretary to the Gov ernment of Assam in the Education Department to examine the matter consistently with the observations made above and then, to pass appropriate order in respect of the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the impugned orders of trans fer and suspension. This shall be done within one month from the date of furnish ing a certified copy of this order by the petitioner to the said Commissioner a nd Secretary along with the relevant documents. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.