IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14796 of 2009 1. KUMAR SUKET S/O SHRI NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD VILLAGE + P.O. + P.S.- RAHUI, DISTT.- NALANDA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PEON IN THE OFFICE OF SUB INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL, MALSALAMI, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWA, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWA, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATNA DIVISION, INTERMEDIATE COUNCIL BUILDING, BUDH MARG, PATNA 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL MALSALAMI, MIDDLE SCHOOL, KALI ASTHAN, MANGAL TALAB, PATNA CITY, PATNA ----------- 2. 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2009 placing him under suspension in pursuance of which departmental proceedings have also been initiated by issuance of memo of charges the same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no justification for the suspension of the petitioner when the respondents had adequate remedy by transferring the petitioner elsewhere as suggested in the order dated 5.9.2009 and which is the foundation for the suspension. The next submission is that fixing his headquarter at Ara 70 K.M. from Patna which prejudices from adequate participation in the departmental proceeding. Counsel for the State submits that Ara comes within the Patna division and under the same RDDE who has 2 suspended the petitioner. Administrative discipline is the prerogative of the employee and it not for this Court to interfere with it. The manner in which the alleged administrative discipline is to be handled, either by transfer, suspension or departmental proceedings, to ensure discipline in the office, is the privilege of the employer. It is only if the action was illegal or malafide that there may be occasion for the Court to hold that the suspension was vitiated. The allegations against the petitioner related to his negligence in discharge of duties as a peon. His refusal to discharge duties, refusal to deliver letters affecting office work. It has also been alleged that his behavior in the office was unbecoming of a Government servant creating obstructions in discharge of official duties. This Court is not persuaded that in the nature of the grounds mentioned in the order culminating in the suspension, specially when departmental proceedings have been initiated on the same ground, it would be proper exercise of jurisdiction for this Court to interfere in the matter. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)