WP(C) 6333/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. I Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M R Pathak, learned standing counsel for the Education Department who appear s for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who at the relevant time was serving as the Head Teacher of the Guiya L P School challenges the order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure 8) issued by the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Assam, whereby the following penal ties were inflicted on her, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding drawn up un der the provisions of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (her einafter referred to as ’the Rule’):- (1) One annual increment is stopped with cumulative effect. (2) She is warned not to repeat such irregularities in future. (3) She is not competent to hold the charge of Head Teacher and hence no such ch arge be allowed. (4) The misdeed be recorded in her Service Book. 3. The impugned penalty was preceded by a show cause notice issued under Ru le 9 of the Rules, where the following 2 charges were leveled against the delinq uent: (1) That while you were working as H.T. of Guiya Satra L P School, you in colla boration with Md. Imran Hussain, UDA, O/o. the BEEO, Kamalpur placed before the BEEO, Kamalpur for attestation a forged GPF Statement. The GPF Statement actuall y proved subsequently belonging to the subscriber Shri Purna Ram Kalita bearing GPF Account No.PED/160374 was manually changed to the advantage of yours. You ar e therefore charged with commission of illegal act misguiding your superior offi cer which served only your personal interests. (2) That while you were working as H.T. of Guiya Satra L P School you had dr awn fraudulently an amount of Rs.18,500/- (Rupees eighteen thousands five hundre d) only manipulating the GPF Account of Shri Purna Ram Kalita by putting your na me with your malafide intention for your personal gain. You are therefore charge d with a fraudulent drawal of Govt. money 4. The petitioner in her reply dated 3.8.2006 denied any wrong doing on her part and stated that immediately after she learnt of the irregularity in disbur sal of loan to her, she refunded the entire loan amount of Rs.18,500/- and she p rayed for her exoneration and revocation of the suspension order. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no inquiry into the cha rge leveled against the petitioner was held and therefore, the impugned penalty is not on the basis of any conclusive finding on the charges. It is pointed out that while no inquiry was conducted into the charges, the petitioner has been su bjected to penalty, on the basis of findings recorded in a parallel inquiry, con ducted against one Md. Imran Hussain, UDA. 6. Since the petitioner was furnished only with the inquiry report dated 16 .11.2006, pertaining to the allegation against Md. Imran Hussain, UDA, this Cour t gave time to the Departmental counsel to produce the inquiry report, if any, c onducted in pursuant to the charge memo dated 2.8.2006 (Annexure-6) issued under Rule 9 of the Rules against the petitioner. However on the basis of the records made available to him, Mr. M. R. Pathak, the learned standing counsel submits t hat no inquiry appears to have been conducted on the charges against the writ pe titioner. Therefore it is apparent that the impugned penalty is sought to be sus tained on the basis of the inquiry finding dated 16.11.2006, which pertains to t he disciplinary proceeding drawn up against Md. Imran Hussain. 7. If the above be the factual position, the contentions advanced by the pe titioner are found to be substantiated. She has been inflicted with penalties wi thout inquiring into the charges leveled against her. In such circumstances, the impugned penalty order (Annexure 8) is clearly unsustainable in law and the sam e is accordingly set aside and quashed. 8. However, notwithstanding the quashing of the penalty ordered on 29.3.200 7, the respondents are granted the liberty to proceed afresh, if so advised, fro m the stage of furnishing of the charge memo dated 2.8.2006 to the delinquent un der the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules. 9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated and the respondents are directed to give all the consequential benefits to the petition er on quashing of the impugned penalty dated 29.3.2007. 10. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the respondent Authorities, for necessary communications.