1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2010. Shivcharandas S/o Murlidhardas Bairagi ... Petitioner. Versus The Deputy Director of Education and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2010. PER COURT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution of India, assails the order dated 11.7.2009 of the School Management, as confirmed by the order dated 9.2.2010 of the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik, imposing the petitioner the minor penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year without future effect. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice issued by the Respondent Management was in respect of two charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of both the charges and thereafter the School Management passed the order dated 11.7.2009, merely indicating that the School Committee was not satisfied with the clarification given by the petitioner and that the petitioner's explanation was very short of general nature and hence, School Committee has taken the decision of stoppage of one annual increment for one year. It is further submitted that the petitioner had specifically mentioned in his reply that the second charge was not at all sustainable as it was not the petitioner who was 3 assigned the duty but another teacher was assigned the duty. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty order passed by the School Management is vitiated by non-application of mind and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Education could not have confirmed the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the petition and supported the order of the Deputy Director of Education. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a matter where disciplinary authority has imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without future effect. Even if the second charge could not be upheld and the Deputy Director has not at all referred to the second charge, the petitioner's explanation in respect of first charge has not been accepted by Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director has held that the Chairman asked the petitioner to return true 4 copy of result sheet, the petitioner did not return the same and kept it with him. Hence, he failed to obey the instructions of the Management and did not observe discipline. The Deputy Director of Education, therefore, appears to have taken the view that the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without future effect was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The petition is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp214310 5