IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14828 of 2008 GANESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE JANAK PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- RAGHUNATHPUR, P.S.-BRAHAMPUR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BUXAR. 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BUXAR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BUXAR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BRAHAMPUR & CHAKKI, DISTRICT-BUXAR.………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Vishwanath Ram, Adv. For the State : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-I. -------------- 3 24.11.2011 Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application made in paragraph 1 is as follows:- “That by this writ petition, the petitioner prays for direction against the office order dated 30.08.2007 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar whereby and whereunder while lifting the suspension of the petitioner, he has most arbitrarily imposed the following punishments on the petitioner on non-est ground and without going through the due process of law:- (i) that no salary will be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension except, subsistence allowance; (ii) stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect; and (iii) the petitioner will have to comply the order 2 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.9811 of 2002.” The order impugned is annexure-1, by which, after asking the show cause from the petitioner, some punishment has been awarded. The punishment appears to be minor one as his one increment without cumulative effect has been stopped for one year and he has been held not entitled for anything else except subsistence allowance for his suspension period. Copy of the notice issued to the petitioner through letter no.571 dated 26.07.2007 is annexure-8 with the writ application. Annexure-8 shows that, due to non- compliance of the earlier orders for depositing the cost of Wheat in three installments, he was asked to give his explanation. Admittedly, he filed some explanation which was not found satisfactory by the respondents and, hence, the order, as contained in annexure-1, has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advances his submission in respect of order directing him to pay cost of Wheat in three installments and submits that proceeding of recovery under the Public Demand Recovery has 3 not even been started. The order of recovery was under challenge by the petitioner in a different writ application, namely, CWJC No.9811 of 2002 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 24.06.2010 with hardly any relief to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the order of recovery etc. is not under challenge in this writ application. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is confined in respect of challenge to punishment order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any submission, worth consideration, for interference in the punishment order impugned in this case. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner will be at liberty to take steps in terms of the order passed in his said earlier writ application. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)