Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has questioned the order dated 10-5-1993 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner has been working as Headmaster of Government Middle School, Burahadih, Khunti. By reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, he was placed under suspension on the following grounds: (i) Drawing the pay of his ownself by disregarding the pay scale orders. (ii) Non-drawal of pay of any other teacher of the school. 2. According to the petitioner no circular issued by the State Government exists in terms whereof the pay-sclale order (Vetanman Adesh) are to be issued. It was stated that the petitioner drew the salary of the teachers for the month of January, 1993 as per the orders of the Block Education Extension Officer, Khunti. The petitioner has contended that by reason of a letter dated 7-1-1993 the Block Education Extension Officer, Khunti directed that no Mandeya (Honorarium) is to be paid to the teachers of the said school. It has further been submitted that the petitioner drew his salary pursuant to the direction No. 5. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted that his order of suspension having not been passed by the District Education Establishment Committee is bad in law. 3. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has, inter alia, been contended that a project had been undertaken for increasing the number of students of the school as the policy decision of the State is to see that more and more persons become literate. According to the State, the posts of teachers are sanctioned on the basis of the strength of the students. It has been contended that in a meeting dated 19-12-1992 of the Bihar Education Project, it was decided that the salary of the teachers of that school was to be stopped till the strength of the students is increased. It was submitted that the decision of the said meeting was communicated to the Headmaster of the school by the Block Education Extension Officer, Khunti to satisfy him that he had not obeyed the order and thus had committed misconduct. 4. It was submitted that the decision of the said meeting was communicated to the Headmaster of the school by the Block Education Extension Officer, Khunti to satisfy him that he had not obeyed the order and thus had committed misconduct. 4. In reply to the aforementioned counter-affidavit, the petitioner has categorically stated that he is a teacher of Nationalised Middle School which was taken over by the Government of Bihar under the Bihar Non-Government Elementary School (Taken Over of Control) Act, 1976 and in terms of a notification dated 29-5-1989 he was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is stated that the school has not been established in terms of a specific project. It was further stated that the petitioner had been transferred from one school to another. It has, therefore, been contended that the condition of his services are governed by the Circular letter issued by the State Government from time to time in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taken Over of Control) Act, 1976. It has further been submitted that the respondents have deliberatedly not annexed the copy of the Bihar Education Project but the same has been annexed with the reply which has been marked as Annexure 11 thereto. It has been contended that a review of the performance of the teachers should be made and if any teacher is found absent, an explanation may be called for and if such explanation is not found sktisfactory, a departmental proceeding should be drawn. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the resolution dated 19-12-1992 upon which reliance has been placed by the respondents. 5. Mr. K.P. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the order of suspension issued as against the petitioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioner has not been suspended, under an order passed by the District Education Establishment Committee. It was further submitted that the charges as against the petitioner had been made on irrelevent grounds. 6. Mr. Mitra further drew our attention to Annexure 12 to the writ application from a perusal wheroof it appears that a meeting of the inspecting officers of the Education Department was held on 19-12-1992 and a large number of officers attended the said meeting. 6. Mr. Mitra further drew our attention to Annexure 12 to the writ application from a perusal wheroof it appears that a meeting of the inspecting officers of the Education Department was held on 19-12-1992 and a large number of officers attended the said meeting. In the said meeting some instructions were given and it appears that a decision had been taken that the Headmaster of the Middle School, Kotri be placed under suspension. 7. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G.P.I. on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner being a teacher appointed for one of the project schools, he could be placed under suspension as the teacher-students ratio in the said school did not satisfy the requirement of the policy decision of the State. It appears that the respondents have not disputed the fact, that the petitioner was a teacher of a Nationalised Middle School. 8. In this view of the matter, the conditions of the petitioners services are guided by the provisions of 1976 Act as also the Circular letters issued by the State of Bihar from time to time. In terms of the Circular letter issued by the State of Bihar from time to time, the disbiplinary authority of a teacher is the District Education Establishment Committee. From a perusal of Annexure 1 to the writ application it appears that the said order of suspension was passed on the basis of the alleged decision taken in the meeting of the Bihar Education Project at Pragati Sadan under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Evidently, therefore, the petitioner was not placed under suspension under any order passed by the competent authority. 9. Mr. Shivnath, learned G.P.I. has not been able to show to us any provision of law either under 1976 Act or the Circular issued thereunder for constitution of such a committee empowering it to place a teacher of a Natonalised Middle School under suspension. 10. Further, the petitioner has stated that he had already drawn the salary of other teachers for the month of January, 1993 including himself. The aforementioned assertion ot the petitioner has not been controverted. It is further evident that even in the meeting dated 19-12-1992 as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application, a decision had been taken by the said Committee to suspend only one teacher. The aforementioned assertion ot the petitioner has not been controverted. It is further evident that even in the meeting dated 19-12-1992 as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application, a decision had been taken by the said Committee to suspend only one teacher. The respondents, it appears, have deliberately or intentionally not produced any purported resolution of any Committee dated 20-2-1993 which has been impugned as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. Further, from a perusal of the letter dated 7-14993 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, it appears that the petitioner was merely directed to, stop the honorarium payable to the teachers. 11. Nothing has been pointed out before us that the Block Education Extension Officer ever intimated to the petitioner that the salary of the teachers are not to be paid, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G.P.I. has also not disputed that the word Mandeya means honorarium and not salary. 12. For the reasons aforementioned it appears that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by an authority not competent therefor. 13. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order of suspension as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application is quashed. However, the departmental proceeding, as against the petitioner shall continue. Narayan Roy, J. 14 I agree.