IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5898 of 2007 Rajendra Pd.Mandal, son of late Chanchal Prasad Mandal, the Headmaster, at present at Primary School, Murwalla, Block Barhara Kothi, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District Purnea … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Purnea 3. District Superintendent of Education, Purnea 4. Area Education Officer, Purnea Sadar, Purnea 5. Block Education Extension Officer … Respondents ----------- 2. 29.8.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed an order of punishment, as contained in Annexure 5, dated 3rd August, 2002 whereby and whereunder the Collector of Purnea District has found the explanation of the petitioner as with regard to his unauthorized absence on duty in course of surprise inspection conducted in the School on 14.3.2002 where the petitioner was working as a teacher, to be wholly unsatisfactory. As a matter of fact such orders of punishment passed by the Collector are wholly within the competence in view of Discipline Control and Appeal Rules framed for the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary School, wherein the 2 District Magistrate in capacity of the Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee has been vested power to inflict minor punishment, whereas major punishment can be inflicted only by the Committee. In that view of the matter, since the order relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 19.7.2005 in C.W.J.C.No. 7256/2004 (Sachhida Nand Singh vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) holding the order of punishment passed by the Collector of Purnea District against a teacher of Primary School to be without jurisdiction, is without considering the relevant Rules, the same must be held to be per in curium. As a matter of fact this order of minor punishment passed by the Collector of the District was also appealable and consequently the petitioner ought to have not straightway rushed to this Court without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy. Finally this Court would find that even the order of punishment which was passed on 3rd of August, 2002 withholding his only one increment and that too with non- 3 cumulative effect has been assailed after almost five years and unexplained delay of five years would also be sufficient to dismiss this writ application on the ground of delay and laches. This Court, however, has also considered the aspect on merit and has found that the medical certificate as with regard to illness of the wife of the petitioner was a manufactured document and could not have been acted upon by the Collector of the District who has rightly rejected the same after considering merit of such medical certificate. Thus, for all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/