WP(C) 6231/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr.K.K.Phukan learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.U. K.Goswami learned SC, Education Department for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 and Mr.G.Goswami learned counsel for respondent No.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the Head Teacher o f Nilakh Palengi L.P.School , Dhemaji . While he was serving as Head Teacher, the respondent Government and the Sarva Siksha Mission authorities sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,65,100/- respectively for construction of school building and additional classroom. The case of the petitioner is that he could not com plete the construction of the said work because of disturbance by some local y ouths and others. Because of the slow process of the construction , the authorit y stopped payment of the petitioner’s salary since 1.1.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action , the petitioner had approached this court by filing a pet ition being WP(C) No.2697/2007 in which the Court pleased to direct the authori ties to make payment of the salaries of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Government by the impugned order dated 27.6 .08(Annexure-IV) pending drawal f departmental proceeding against the petitione r for mis-appropriation of the government money released to the school under 11t h Finance Commission for construction of school building and fund allotted from SSA. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, notice was issued to th e petitioner vide letter dated 27.6.08 by the DEEO cum D.I. of school(i/c). In the aforesaid show cause notice it has been alleged that the petitioner had com pleted 65% of work and that the petitioner had used low quality materials in t he construction work and the petitioner had misused Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,00, 000/- without starting the construction work. Pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner submitted hi s reply on 23.7.08(Annexure VI to the writ petition) and the petitioner explaine d the reasons for delay in the construction and also denied that he had misapp ropriated any money as alleged. However on 5.8.2010 the authorities i.e. DEEO and i/c D.I. of school, Dhemaji served a letter dated 5.8.11(Annexure vii to the writ petition) directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.38,700/ - as the petitioner had failed to construct the additional class room inspite o f release of the full amount from the SSA, Dhemaji . Pursuant to the aforesaid l etter, the District Mission Coordinator, SSA also wrote to the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 38,700/- from th e petitioner vide his letter dated 15.5.2010 (Annexure viii to the writ petitio n). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petioner has filed this wr it petition for quashing the aforesaid letters dated 15.5.10 and 5.8.10 and al so for revoking the suspension order dated 27.6.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It seems from the petition that the petitioner was accused of misappropr iation of certain amount sanctioned by Government as well as SSA authorities for construction work of school building and for additional class room, for which the petitioner was given show cause notice. The petitioner has given his reply. However even after lapse of more than two years of the show cause and his repl y, the authority had not completed the aforesaid enquiry. However during the pe ndency of aforesaid proceeding , the petitioner was served notice of recovery of an amount of Rs.38,700/- which was very much the issue in the said departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, before the authorities concluded the enquiry and came to a decision regarding liabili ty of the petitioner, it is premature to direct the petitioner to deposite the aforesaid amount. It is expected of the authority to take a decision on the co nclusion of the enquiry against the petitioner. Before conclusion of the enquiry if any such order for recovery is passed , it would render the departmental p roceeding redundant. This Court is of the opinion that since the subject matter relating to t he recovery is the same as that the departmental proceedings initiated agains t the petitioner, the aforesaid recovery notice could not have been issued befo re conclusion of the departmental enquiry. This Court is of the opinion that the recovery notice cannot be acted upon until a definite finding is arrived in the departmental proceeding or any enquiry . As regards the second prayer for revocation of suspension order since, the petitioner is going to retire on 31.12.2011 and since he was the holding t he post of Head Teacher, it may not be appropriate at this stage to reinstate hi m as a Head teacher for only a few days. However it is expected that the author ities would complete the departmental proceeding against the petitioner as soon as possible as undue delay on the part of the authorities to complete the depa rtmental proceeding would cause prejudice to the petitioner . Therefore, it is directed that the respondent authorities should comple te the departmental proceeding against the petitioner as expeditiously preferab ly within a period of one year, in view of the fact that the departmental procee ding has been pending since 2008. It is also provided that pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner would not come in the way in granting the pensionary benefit t o the petitioner as per rules. With the above observation and direction the writ petition stands allowe d to the extent indicated above.