Order This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Annexure-5 dated 5.7.1995, whereby while releasing the petitioner from suspension, the District Superintendent of Education has held that the petitioner will not be paid two annual increments with cumulative effect. 2. It appears on 29.12.1993 the school in question was visited by the Block Education Extension Officer. According to him, at the time of inspection the school was found closed and the Headmaster (petitioner) and one Assistant Teacher both were found absent. On the basis of the aforesaid charge, petitioner was placed under suspension. Ultimately enquiry was carried out by the Block Development Officer, Bodhgaya, who examined different villagers to find out whether the school was clos8d at the relevant time as also whether there was any complaint against the petitioner. A copy of the report of the Block Development Officer is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It would appear from his report that none of the villagers made any allegation against the petitioner about the closure of the school. The report further shows that on the day the school was visited, there was chhatth festival. Therefore, in his report he has virtually tried to justify the absence of the petitioner from the school, if any at the relevant time. This is not the finding of the enquiring officer that on the relevant day the school was closed for whole of the day. Of course he was not able to record finally whether the school was closed at 3.15 p.m. or after 3.15 p.m. By the impugned order the disciplinary authority although posted the petitioner in the same very school, but imposed major punishment withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while imposing major punishment, having regard to the opinion of the enquiring officer, it was proper for the disciplinary authority to give the petitioner at least opportunity to show cause as to why such punishment be not imposed. He contended that while, recording major punishment, the disciplinary authority is required to serve a copy of the enquiry report along with the charge to the delinquent to file show cause. But in this case nothing has been done. He contended that while, recording major punishment, the disciplinary authority is required to serve a copy of the enquiry report along with the charge to the delinquent to file show cause. But in this case nothing has been done. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, since on the relevant day, there was chhatth festival, therefore, having regard to the statement of the villagers, it was proper for the District Superintendent of Education to take a lenient view. 4. Counsel for the respondents while referring to the statements, made in the counter affidavit, tried to justify the findings of the disciplinary authority. According to him, since the school was found closed at the relevant time, the disciplinary authority had no option but to impose such punishment. 5. In my view, if there was no clear finding in the enquiry report of the Block Development Officer, it was proper for the disciplinary authority to give a chance to the petitioner to file show cause before imposing such major punishment. That apart, the impugned order is quite cryptic since reasons have not been assigned for such major punishment. 6. I, therefore, having taken in to consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly that the enquiring officer was not himself sure whether the school was closed, feel inclined to take a lenient view and allow this application. 7. With the aforesaid finding, the impugned order as well as the appellate order are hereby, quashed.