Judgment 1. The petitioner appellant is Ishwar Dayal. Since 1 September, 1975 he was posted as a Headmaster at the Middle School, Khajpura, Patna Sadar, Patna. The petition was filed because an action was taken against him for having closed the school in Village and having permitted a marriage party to stay at the School. He was suspended. He was chargesheeted. An inquiry was made against him. Punishment was awarded to him by loss of an increment from his emoluments. Thereafter, he was transferred out of the School to another School. The petitioner had come earlier to the High Court also when he filed C.W.J.C. No. 7574 of 1998 : Ishwar Dayal V/s.The State of Bihar & Ors. against his order of suspension. The Court had not interfered at that stage as inquiries against him were pending. 2. Ultimately, the administrative inquiries saw the charges proved so to say. He was punished. On the punishment awarded, he saw loss of an increment, non-payment of salary during inquiries and transfer out of the School. Thus, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3413 of 1999 : Ishwar Dayal V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 3. The matter was debated in hearing on the writ petition. Initially the learned Judge was of the view, as expressed in the judgment impugned in this appeal, to observe "I am inclined to think that the /procedure adopted by was not correct" This Court is of the view that the matter should have been left with this verdict on the departmental proceedings certified as incorrect and wrong in procedure. If the Honble Judge had already come to the conclusion that the procedure in the inquiry was against norms, the logical conclusion, would have been to remit the matter to the Enquiry Officer to examine the matter de novo and afresh. 4. If the Honble Judge had already come to the conclusion that the procedure in the inquiry was against norms, the logical conclusion, would have been to remit the matter to the Enquiry Officer to examine the matter de novo and afresh. 4. But, thereafter the learned Judge continued to examine the matter on a fact finding inquiry and render conclusions and gave a finding that "the charges against the petitioner in sum and substance was that as Headmaster he had closed the School on 8.3.98 in order to provide "accommodation to a marriage party." Thereafter, the explanation of the Headmaster facing inquiry has been noticed to the effect that "the case of the petitioner was that the School was open, however, as the marriage party was staying in the community hall situated in the same campus causing obstruction to the students in prosecuting their studies, the classes were suspended." With these premises the matter was examined and the learned Judge was of the opinion that withholding of the salary (except subsistence allowance) during suspension was not incorrect as the petitioner had not been fully exonerated of the charges. The action against the petitioner as guilty of the charges and the withholding of his salary was certified to be a valid action. 5. This Court has examined the record in detail. The Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh as also State counsel Mr. Binod Kumar; J.C. to S.C. II. 6. The first basic fact which was lost sight of and thus became an error throughout the departmental proceedings and the hearing on the writ petition is, that no doubt there was a school in the village. The assumption which became an error was that a marriage party was accommodated at the village school. This was not so. The marriage party arrived at the community hall. It was the school which was running from the community hall. The school did not have a building of its own. The second error was that the Headmaster of the Middle School had committed a misdemeanour by accommodating a marriage party at the School. The question : Is this correct? The rest is consequential. 7. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner presents facts that in the village there was no school building. The second error was that the Headmaster of the Middle School had committed a misdemeanour by accommodating a marriage party at the School. The question : Is this correct? The rest is consequential. 7. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner presents facts that in the village there was no school building. A part of the community hall was being used to run the Middle School. Thus, when the marriage party arrived in the village the Headmaster was hardly left with an option to deny the use of the community hall. The community hall is for use of and by the community. In a village a marriage is a community function and festivity both. The question is not whether the marriage party came into the School. This is not so. It came to the village community hall. All these facts have not been denied by the State respondents. What was the poor village Headmaster to do if the village school did not have a building of its own? Where had the village school building gone? The school was running in the village community hall by sufferance. The Directorate of Education was, coming to think of it, running away from the reality that it had not provided the village with a school building. 8. These matters need to be examined in conditions which are local to rural Bihar and if they are to be seen on technicalities the context will be lost. This is not a case where the matter had to be examined on a technicality whether the rules of natural justice were being satisfied in giving an opportunity to the Headmaster to explain why he had closed the School. A little imagination and objectivity was required from the District Superintendent of Education, Patna that he was dealing with a problem in a village and the answer could not be sorted out in his office. The village should have had a school building. The school building was absent, a feature not so unknown in rural Bihar. The school was running from a community hall. 9. Of a person domiciled in that village waiting to receive the marriage party bringing the groom or the bride, this wedding procession cannot be turned away. The village should have had a school building. The school building was absent, a feature not so unknown in rural Bihar. The school was running from a community hall. 9. Of a person domiciled in that village waiting to receive the marriage party bringing the groom or the bride, this wedding procession cannot be turned away. If the only sin of the Headmaster was that he had taken the marriage party to the community hall then there were many others who had to explain this, the Block Development Officer not excluded. There is nothing unnatural that a village barat may be lodged in the village community hall. The school was running in the community hall by default and for this default the village Headmaster paid a very heavy price. First, in the proverbial sense his turban was taken off his head to face a departmental action. Thereafter, suspended. Then long drawn departmental proceedings. Then a punishment cutting his emoluments and finally kicked at the back as a charged and guilty Headmas- ter to be transferred out to another vil- lage. 10. On the statement of fact that the village did not have a school, all the re- spondents arrayed in the writ petition did not have the courage to deny the facts but conveniently evaded it. Thus, what the petitioner stated in his petition and reiter- ated in his rejoinder affidavit remains as an unrebutted fact that in the village there is no school and the school was running from the community hall. This fact had not come as a surprise to the State respondents. When the District Superintendent of Education, Patna sought an explanation by his letter dated 5 May, 1998 (annexure 4), the Headmaster offered his comments by his explanation dated 25 May, 1998 (annexure 5) that the village did not have a school and the school was running from the community hall, and that he was hardly left with any choice in not permitting the marriage party to occupy other rooms in the community hall. Throughout the departmental proceedings this basic fact was ignored. 11. Unfortunately, when the writ petition was decided after it was certified that the departmental inquiry was defective and in error this aspect had not been noted. Throughout the departmental proceedings this basic fact was ignored. 11. Unfortunately, when the writ petition was decided after it was certified that the departmental inquiry was defective and in error this aspect had not been noted. Thus, this Court on appeal is of the view that the learned Judge fell into an error in proceeding with the merits once it was certified that the departmental proceeding was defective. After this certification the learned Judge ought to have set aside and quashed the departmental proceedings or remitted the matter for inquiring afresh. 12. In the circumstances, with unrebutted facts the situation on ground realities is that the village did not have a school. The school was running from the community hall. The school Headmaster had made no error, committed no sin as he was faced with no choice except to accept the situation that the marriage party could not go to any other place than the community hall. Such are the social pressures in the villages of rural Bihar. It cannot be blamed on a village Headmaster that he should have kept the marriage party at bay when both the school and community hall were sharing common building areas. 13. The matter was not seen in objectivity in the departmental inquiry. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna, examined the matter with much subjectivity without considering ground realities and more so at this particular village. The most relevant aspect, that there was no school in the village, was not even considered in the departmental proceedings. An answer to this fact was evaded in the counter affidavit when the State had an opportunity to contradict the petitioner. In such circumstances to insult the village Headmaster for a sin which he had not committed, is a punishment which has been taken too far. In a village the respect of a school teacher or a Headmaster cannot be trampled upon by a baton wielding desk squatting bureaucracy. A viiiage school teacher has to be treated with respect. A village school Headmaster is a man with status. A man who has been teacher to many table-and-chair file pushing babus. 14. The only way this Court can mitigate the insult which was shown to the village Headmaster, Ishwar Dayal, is to quash the entire departmental proceeding, the period of suspension, the loss of increment and salary and the transfer. A writ of certiorari issues accordingly. A man who has been teacher to many table-and-chair file pushing babus. 14. The only way this Court can mitigate the insult which was shown to the village Headmaster, Ishwar Dayal, is to quash the entire departmental proceeding, the period of suspension, the loss of increment and salary and the transfer. A writ of certiorari issues accordingly. Headmaster Ishwar Dayals position as on the date prior to the arrival of the marriage party is restored. Ishwar Dayal, the petitioner appellant, will be entitled to all his dues. 15. Further, this Court feels that Headmaster Ishwar Dayal, the petitioner appellant is entitled to special costs from the State of Bihar which shall stand at Rs. 5,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Petitioner-Appellant along with all the service dues within six weeks from today. 16. The appeal succeeds with costs, as above.