Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. Since both the writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner and are based on almost the same set of facts, therefore, these writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C. W. J. C. No.12118 of 1992, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders of transfer dated 30/3/1992 (Annexure 3), dated 20/7/1992 (Annexure 5) and dated 7/11/1992 (Annexure 7) passed by the respondent District Superindent of Education (in short D S. E.), Bhojpur in C. WJ. C. No.187 of 1993 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of suspension dated 28/9/1992 (Annexure 8) passed by the respondent d. S. E. , Bhojpur. 3. The petitioner is in the cadre of headmaster. By the order as contained in Annexure 3 the petitioner had been transferred from Middle school, Gundi, to Middle School, Fatehpur and, accordingly, by annexure 4 on 19/5/1992, that he was relieved. But it appears that since the post of headmaster at Fatehpur was not vacant, therefore, by the order as contained in Annexure 5, the petitioner was again transferred to middle School, Bishnupura (Tarari) and he was also relieved for joining his new post on 1/8/1992. But admittedly, the petitioner did not join the post at Bishnupura for some reason or the other. By the order as contained in annexure 7 one Shri Ramshankar Singh, (Respondent No.5 of c. W. J. C.12118/92) was transferred to Middle School, Gundi, where the petitioner was originally posted. 4. By order dated 28th September, 1992 (Annexure 8) in C. WJ. C. No.187/93) the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and the office of the Area Education Officer, agra was fixed as the headmaster during the period of suspension. The reasons given in the impugned order of suspension are three fold, namely, (1) he has not joined the new post on transfer, (2) He has not issued lost pay Certificate to the teachers and (3) he has threatened the assistance of the treasury to kill him for certain reasons. 5. The reasons given in the impugned order of suspension are three fold, namely, (1) he has not joined the new post on transfer, (2) He has not issued lost pay Certificate to the teachers and (3) he has threatened the assistance of the treasury to kill him for certain reasons. 5. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has levelled the impugned orders of transfer on the grounds that in view of the Government Notification No.3383 dated 2nd December, 1980, which has been held to be satisfoctory in nature by this Court, order of transfer can be passed only by the District Education Establishment Committee and not by the D. S. E. , as has been done in the present case and therefore, those orders are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. His further submission is that taking the orders of transfer to be ab inilio void even if the petitioner has not obeyed those orders, he cannot be said to have committed any misconduct and therefore, one of the three grounds of suspension mentioned in the impugned order of suspension, is non est. His further submission is that the second ground as given in the impugned order of suspension has already been concluded by an earlier enquiry in this regard wherein the petitioner was exonerated as is evident from the order contained in memo No.665 dated 22/7/1991 (Annexure 2 of the C. W. J. C. No.12118 of 1992) and, therefore, this could not have been the subject matter of second suspension and departmental nroceeding In this background, by placing reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and others, cwjc No 2707/79 and analogous case, disposed of on 15/2/1980), it has been submitted that since out of the three grounds, which persuaded the disciplinary authorities to pass an order of suspension, two of the grounds being either nonest or irrelevant, even if the third ground be taken as valid no order of suspension could have been passed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Sinha, learned S. C.4, has submitted that the grounds as set-forth in the impugned orders of suspension are quite different than the grounds on which the earlier departmental nroceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was put under suspension. Therefore, according to him, the submission made by Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Sinha, learned S. C.4, has submitted that the grounds as set-forth in the impugned orders of suspension are quite different than the grounds on which the earlier departmental nroceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was put under suspension. Therefore, according to him, the submission made by Mr. Singh can not be accepted. 7. From a perusal of the petition of complaint (Annexure 1), which had been the basis of the first departmental enquiry, it appears, that at that time the allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he had detained the payment of salary of the teachers mala fidely and without any reason and it was on this ground that an enquiry was conducted and during the pendency thereof the petitioner was suspended. From annexure 2 of the C. W. T. C. No.12118 of 1992, it appears that this charge as levelled against the petitioner could not be sustantiated. But so far as the present order of suspension is concerned, the ground for the same is not detaining the payment of salary but is with regard to non-issue of last pay certificate and therefore, even if one of the grounds relating to nonobeyance of transfer orders be taken as irrelevant, still there remains two substantive grounds on which an order of suspension can well be sustained. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the said order of suspension by which the office of the Area Education Officer has been filed as the headquartet,pf the petitioner, the impugned orders of transfer in question have become inconsequential and, therefore, needs no interfernce. 9. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any merit in either of the writ applications. Both the writ applications are accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.