P. K. RAY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) IN the instant application the petitioner a teacher of Ramkrishna mission High School, Post Office: Sagargachi, District: Murshidabad has challenged the order dated 28th April 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad whereby the petitioner's salary was withheld and the school authority was directed to submit fresh requisition of salary for the month of April, 2003 excluding the names of those teachers including the petitioner for release of salary. This writ application can be disposed of without directing to file an affidavit even, in view of gross illegality in the order itself which is ex- facie on record. The impugned decision of District inspector of Schools in this writ application reads thus: ( 3 ) FROM the impugned decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned, it appears that the said officer acted as per direction of the hon'ble Education Minister of the State of West Bengal. Hence, this order is attracted by doctrine of "acting under dictation" in terms of the administrative Law. It is a settle law that under the statutory provision only a statutory body has the right to take action. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was appointed following the Recruitment Rules issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal under Memo dated 26th November 1998 prescribed guidelines for appointment and recruitment of Assistant Teacher, Headmaster, etc. in the concerned school who has a special constitution. That rule has been annexed at page 49 of the writ application. It appears that the school authority was granted permission to appoint staff in terms of Recruitment Rule issued by Director of School education, West Bengal. Under the special Constitution, and the guideline issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal, the petitioner was selected and empanelled by a Selection Committee and ultimately was appointed with effect from 1st February. 2003. Such appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad by his memo dated 22nd April 2003 annexed at page 37 of the writ application. Under this special constitution as well as the Recruitment Rule, there is no such provision for withholding the payments of salary of any approved teacher. 2003. Such appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad by his memo dated 22nd April 2003 annexed at page 37 of the writ application. Under this special constitution as well as the Recruitment Rule, there is no such provision for withholding the payments of salary of any approved teacher. It is the Managing Committee who is to initiate a proceeding to withheld the salary and after hearing the concerned teacher and on giving proper opportunity of hearing, the same can be passed. The Minister-in-Charge of Education Department nowhere has been mentioned as the authority to direct withholding of payments of salary and further District inspector of Schools concerned also has no authority to do such by his own action and/or by the dictation of the Minister-in-charge. No power vested upon the Education Minister in terms of statute to take any action and/or to dictate another officer to do something against approved staff. The District Inspector of Schools concerned acted illegally paying heed to the dictation of the Education Minister. The Education Minister has no power, right and jurisdiction to dictate the District Inspector of Schools concerned to do something. Furthermore, under the statutory provision once, petitioner's service has been approved by the District Inspector of schools concerned, following the special constitution in question, until and unless the petitioner is penalised by any departmental proceeding, no salary could be stopped. In the instant case, hence applying the doctrine of "acting under dictation" as well as applying the principle of violation of statutory rules the impugned decision accordingly is not legally sustainable. The principle of law under the doctrine of dictation is a settled law by several judgments of the apex Court as well as of the English Court. Reliance may be placed to the said judgments as noted below. It has been held by the judgment passed by the English Court as well as our apex Court that if someone acts under the dictation of other who is not statutorily empowered to dictate, the order is not only vitiated but it goes to the root of the matter. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case Simms Motor Units Ltd. v. Minister of Labour and National Service, reported in (1946)2 All ER 201. In that case, the Minister-in-charge under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, reg. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case Simms Motor Units Ltd. v. Minister of Labour and National Service, reported in (1946)2 All ER 201. In that case, the Minister-in-charge under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, reg. 58a was vested with a right to confer power upon himself of his representative to issue orders. The National Service Officer under the order in terms of the statutory rule got a discretionary power to decide the case. But Minister-in-charge passed further instruction leaving no scope to exercise such discretion by the National Service Officer. As a resultant effect the reinstatement to the service to the concerned employee was vitiated. On that factual scenario, the impugned decision was quashed by the English Court applying the said doctrine. The similar situation arose in the cases of Rv. Police Complaints Board, Ex parte Madden, reported in (1983)2 All ER 353, wherein the Court applied said legal theory. In that case, a complaint against the police was filed before the Police complaints board by virtue'-of section 2 (1} of the Police Act, 1976. The Board was required to exercise its discretionary power for appropriate proceeding departmentally but unlawfully fettered the discretion which it had under section 3 (2) of the 1976 Act by regarding itself as bound to comply with secretary of State's guidance and thereby to accept the police decision not to institute disciplinary proceedings, since the object for which the Board was created was the consideration of complaints against Police Officers and natural justice required the Board itself to consider such complaints rather than to accept as binding the decision of another person, namely the director of Public Prosecution, not to prosecute an officer. The English court applied the said doctrine and quashed the decision of the Board. Same point has been reechoed by another English case H. Lavender and son Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, reported in (1970)3 all ER 871. The English court applied the said doctrine and quashed the decision of the Board. Same point has been reechoed by another English case H. Lavender and son Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, reported in (1970)3 all ER 871. In that case H. Lavender and son Ltd. (supra) while under the law namely under section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, the appeal was required to disposed of on its merit by exercising the discretionary power by Minister of Housing and Local Government but the appeal was decided making the ground that the Minister of Agriculture, fisheries and Food was opposed to working of such Housing Planning and till the embargo was not withdrawn, there was no question of grant planning permission. On that factual matrix, the Court held that the Minister of housing and Local Government failed to exercise his discretionary power and accorded in terms of the dictation of the another Minister, though the statute provided him to reach in a positive decision in appeal in question under Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. ( 4 ) THE apex Court also has considered this aspect, in the following judgment passed in the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1498 , a bench of Three Judges of Apex Court. In that case, under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 assessment by Deputy superintendent was based on instruction from Collector who was the appellate Autority to decide the assessment reached by Deputy superintendent. Considering such, the apex Court held that the direction given by the Collector was invalid and as a consequence, thereof, the assessment made by the Deputy Superintendent of Assessing Collector was vitiated. In that case, under the statute, the Collector had no jurisdiction to dictate the terms of assessment to the Assessing Authority, the Deputy superintendent and accordingly the Apex Court quashed the entire proceeding. The same principle was applied in another case, Anirudhsinhji karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 . ( 5 ) IN the instant case, it appears that in terms of the Recruitment Rules and the Special constitution of the concerned school and its special ruleand guidelines issued by the Director of School Education,. The same principle was applied in another case, Anirudhsinhji karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 . ( 5 ) IN the instant case, it appears that in terms of the Recruitment Rules and the Special constitution of the concerned school and its special ruleand guidelines issued by the Director of School Education,. West Bengal, once the post appointment approval was accorded the teacher concerned is considered as holding a permanent post and he is entitle'd to get all opportunity of hearing before any order is passed which leads to civil consequence. Petitioner's salary has been withheld. Hence, petitioner has suffered civil consequences. Reliance may be placed for definition of the terms "civil consequence" to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of apex Court passed in the case Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. , reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 as well as of the case S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. , reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , judgment of Three Judges Bench of apex Court. In the instant ease, the petitioner had suffered a civil consequence without any proceeding and without any hearing to him. Furthermore, under the statutory provision neither the District Inspector of Schools concerned nor the concerned minister-in-charge has power, authority and jurisdiction to withheld salary of any approved teacher until and unless by way of appropriate departmental proceeding, a punishment is imposed withholding salary. The District inspector of Schools concerned in the case has acted in highly arbitrary manner in a case in which neither he has any power nor Minister-in-charge got the power and jurisdiction to dictate him. Hence, paying any heed to such dictation of Minister-in-charge which itself is invalid and illegal, the entire order has been vitiated with gross illegality and abuse of power. The district Inspector of Schools concerned while under the statute is required to follow norms and procedures has failed to discharge his function. Having regard to the aforesaid observation and settled principle of law, accordingly the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside and quashed. It is declared that petitioner is entitled to get all arrear salaries and service benefits as well as the current salaries allowances and benefits till by appropriate proceeding, the petitioner's service condition is not altered and/or modified and/or cancelled. It is declared that petitioner is entitled to get all arrear salaries and service benefits as well as the current salaries allowances and benefits till by appropriate proceeding, the petitioner's service condition is not altered and/or modified and/or cancelled. Since the petitioner has been denies his salary and petitioner has suffered civil consequence and since right to earn livelihood is protected in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of india, it is a fit case for imposition of interest on the amount already withheld. Accordingly, an interest at rate of 12% per annum be paid on the arrear salaries. The arrear salaries to be released within four weeks from the date of communication of the order along with 12 percent per annum interest till the date of payment. Since due to the exercise of a power not vested to the District Inspector of Schools concerned and due to abuse of power, the petitioner has suffered and this Court has directed payment of interest, such interest amount to be reimbursed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned who passed the impugned decision, which is now quashed, from his own salary to the Government Fund. This order is passed having regard to the fact that to satisfy the Minister-in-charge, District Inspector of Schools concerned abused his power and caused suffering to the service career of the petitioner who has suffered civil consequence. Let the current salary of petitioner also to be paid regularly till in accordance with law, his service condition is not changed. ( 6 ) THIS writ application thus allowed. Since the learned advocate for the State Government is appearing he will take immediate steps directing the other respondents to implement the order. Let a copy be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal and the Secretary, Education Department for necessary direction to all the officers working in the State of West Bengal not to punish any one and/or to act as per dictation of the Minister unless statute provided such scope of dictation by Minister. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously. Application allowed