IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3721 of 2009 BHUPENDRA PRASAD YADAV, S/o Late Baidnath Prasad Yadav, Resident of village – Bargaon (Marya), P.O. Bargaon, P.S. Basnahi, District – Saharsa. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 4. The Block Development Officer –cum- Circle Officer, Block – Sonbarsa, District – Saharsa. 5. The Sub-divisional Account Officer, Co-operative Committee, Saharsa. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block – Sonbarsa (West), District – Saharsa. … Respondents. For the petitioner : - Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Sri Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate ----------- 03/ 13.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Despite several indulgences given to the counsel representing the State no counter affidavit has been filed till today. As such this writ application is being disposed of without there being any counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 472-7 dated 4.3.2009 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa on the direction of District Magistrate, Saharsa contained in letter no. 255 dated 13.2.2009. The District Magistrate, Saharsa issued impugned order directed the - 2 - District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa to issue order of suspension against the petitioner for his absence and for not co- operating in the relief work, being conducted by the district administration. On the direction of the District Magistrate, Saharsa by order dated 4.3.2009 contained in Memo No. 472-7 the petitioner was put under suspension by the District Superintendent of Education. In this order it is also mentioned that a departmental proceeding will be initiated against the petitioner after framing of the charge and it’s supply to the petitioner in proper form. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the direction issued by the District Magistrate vide letter no. 255 dated 13.2.2009 and its compliance by the District Superintendent of Education by issuing the order dated 4.3.2009 are completely without jurisdiction. Competent authority for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, under Rule 17 of the Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006, is the Panchayat Committee. In case of the petitioner’s unauthorized absence and non-performance of his duties, any disciplinary action could have been taken by the Committee constituted under Rule 9(vii) of 2006 Rules. Since - 3 - the impugned order has been issued by the authorities having no jurisdiction, it is liable to be quashed. No counter affidavit has been filed denying the stand taken by the petitioner. On perusal of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006, I find under Rule 17 the Panchayat Committee is authorized for taking disciplinary action. The District Magistrate is not authorized for issuing such direction against Panchayat Teachers. The District Superintendent of Education is also not vested with such powers, under 2006 Rules. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 4.3.2009 contained in Memo No. 472-7 issued by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 13.2.2009 contained in letter no. 255 dated 13.2.2009 issued by respondent no. 2 are quashed. The suspension order of the petitioner was revoked. The respondents will allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Incharge Headmaster of the concerned school. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)