WP(C) 5066/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA Heard learned counsel for all the parties. While the petitioner involved in first two writ petitions has prayed for his reinstatement in service as Principal(i/c) of the Lahorighat Higher Seconda ry School in the district of Morigaon, the petitioner involved in third writ pet ition is against such reinstatement of the petitioner upon revocation of the ord er of suspension. During pendency of the first two writ petitions, the petitioner was rein stated in service upon revocation of the order of suspension. However, when he w as not allowed to resume his duties, he filed the second writ petition seeking a Mandamus. In the meantime, the managing committee of the school had filed the third writ petition being WP(C) no.3950/ 2011 challenging the order of reinstate ment in service. It appears that there was an interim direction for allowing the petition er involved in the first two writ petitions to resume duties as Principal(i/c) o f the school. However, in the third writ petition i.e. WP(C no.3950/2011, an int erim order has been passed restraining such reinstatement in service. On perusal of the order-sheets it appears that a personal appearance of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, was given to appraise the Court abou t the stage of the enquiry proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner involved in the first two writ petitions. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Seco ndary Education passed the annexure A order dated 21st September, 2011, which is reproduced below: ’ORDER Md Hazarat Ali, the then i/c Principal of Laharighat Higher Secondary Sc hool, Morigaon was placed under suspension by the Inspector of Schools, M.D.C., Morigaon vide his Order No.MDC/ Alleg/01/08/901-06, dated 23.9.2009 on the charg es of financial irregularities committed by him. The said suspension order was a pproved by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide his order No.GB/Estt/ Aptt/9/2000/293, dated 23.12.2009. While approving the order, the Inspector of S chools, M.D.C., Morigaon was directed to draw departmental proceedings within 15 days from the issue of the order. It is seen that Md Hazarat Ali was served a s how cause notice by the Inspector of Schools on 15.9.2009. Md Hazarat Ali submit ted a reply to the show cause notice on 17.9.2009. Md Hazarat Ali approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the form of a WP(C) no.785/2011. The case came up for hearing on 29.6.2011 and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court asked for the statu s of the departmental proceedings. Md Hazarat Ali was reinstated vide this offic e order No.GB-Estt/DSE/ CC/31/2011/69-A, dated 18.7.2011. The Inspect of Schools, M.D.C., Morigaon is hereby appointed as the Enqu iry Officer for completion of the said departmental proceedings within 45 days, if necessary by taking day to day hearing. He will serve fresh show cause notice , statement of allegations and shall frame charges on the basis of allegations w hich are in his record. The Inspector of Schools, M.D.C., Morigaon shall submit his report along with findings to the undersigned for necessary order from this office. The said exercise should be completed within 45 days. Sd/-Sri B.L.Sarma, ACS, Director of Secondary Education Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. Memo No.GB-EST/DSE/CC/31/2011/117-A Dated Kahilipara, the 21st September, 2011 . Ms D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the face of it the aforesaid order dated 21st September, 2011 is not maintainable, and by passing the said order the disciplinary authority has caused a serious pr ejudice to the case of the petitioner. She submits that the kind of direction pa ssed by the impugned order is unheard of in disciplinary proceedings. The issue involved is, as to whether during pendency of the proceeding t he petitioner Md Hazarat Ali should be allowed to get reinstated in service or n ot, which is primarily a matter within the jurisdiction and competence of discip linary authority. It is in this context, Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Discipli ne and Appeal) Rules, 1964, provides for reinstatement in service upon revocatio n of the order of suspension on the basis of the appeal preferred by the delinqu ent. In the instant case, the petitioner was reinstated in service which is unde r challenge in the writ petition filed by the managing committee of the school. As to whether the managing committee of a school can put to challenge an order o f reinstatement upon revocation of the order of suspension, is an issue which wi ll have to be decided by the disciplinary authority. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the said issue. Considering the matter in its entirety, all the writ petitions are dispo sed of directing the disciplinary authority, which is identified as Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to deal with the matter properly by taking note of t he attending facts and circumstances and pass appropriate order. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 31.1.20 12.