JUDGMENT : By Court.- This writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that as the respondent no. 4 was suspended and as an over cautious petitioner, a ratification was sought for suspension and the same was declined by the concerned respondent no. 2 authority vide order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition). In fact, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no legal provision for getting sanction or permission or ratification or approval for suspension of respondent no. 2. Nonetheless, as an over cautious petitioner, such an application was preferred and it was declined by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition) and therefore, the present petition has been preferred. 2. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are serious charges of misappropriation of sizeable amount by the respondent no. 4. The charges levelled against, which is at Annexure-17 to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4. Number of irregularities committed by the delinquent. There are as many as 61 charges against the delinquent respondent, sizeable amount was misappropriated as per the said charge-sheet, from the students. Thereafter, the present petitioner was suspended the services for holding enquiry. Suspension was imposed mainly for the reason that he may not tamper with the evidences by attending the school because of the documents lying in the office of the school. In fact, for holding enquiry, suspension in such type of cases, is a sine qua non. Suspension, was never imposed by way of punishment, but, it was imposed as procedure of holding 6lnquiry. Respondent No. 4 was suspended on 19th December, 2002 thereafter, enquiry was conducted and completed on 11th October, 2003. The said report is at Annexure-22. Thereafter, a dismissal order was passed against respondent no. 4 by way of punishment vide order dated 20th October, 2003. The question involves in the present petition is only about a suspension, but, after suspension, much water has flowed from river Thems. A detailed enquiry was carried out. Charges were framed. Report of the enquiry was given. Quantum of punishment was also fixed and dismissal order dated 20th October, 2003 was passed. The question involves in the present petition is only about a suspension, but, after suspension, much water has flowed from river Thems. A detailed enquiry was carried out. Charges were framed. Report of the enquiry was given. Quantum of punishment was also fixed and dismissal order dated 20th October, 2003 was passed. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither method of holding enquiry, neither enquiry report, nor quantum of punishment, nor the dismissal order has ever been challenged by respondent-delinquent, therefore, they have attained their finality. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no rules which impose duty upon the petitioner to seek for the permission for the suspension (given for holding enquiry) of the delinquent. Nonetheless, either because of misinterpretation or because of misreading of law or may be because of over cautious petitioner, a permission was sought for, from respondent no. 2 who has declined the permission for suspension of respondent no. 4 while holding the departmental enquiry and therefore, order at Annexure-2, passed by respondent no. 2, dated 24th April, 2003 whereby suspension given by the petitioner to the delinquent respondent during course of the departmental enquiry was not approved and therefore this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to several Annexures of the petition, reply, rejoinder and counter affidavits as well as all the Interlocutory Applications and submitted that in fact now the suspension order automatically comes to an end upon completion of the departmental enquiry which is resulted into an order of dismissal of the respondent no. 4. Even after dismissal of respondent no. 4 approximately half a dozen years have been passed, respondent no. 4 has not challenged before any Authority, Tribunal or competent Court the said dismissal order, but, this Court has passed the order dated 6th May, 2003, which reads as under:- "Let notice be issued on Respondent NO.4 through Court. Requisites etc. under registered cover with AID must be filed in the Court by 14th May, 2003 failing which this application as against the concerned Respondent shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. The Counsel for the State may obtain instructions and file counter affidavit within five weeks. Place the case "For Admission" on 11th July, 2003 within fifteen cases. under registered cover with AID must be filed in the Court by 14th May, 2003 failing which this application as against the concerned Respondent shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. The Counsel for the State may obtain instructions and file counter affidavit within five weeks. Place the case "For Admission" on 11th July, 2003 within fifteen cases. Until further order the Respondent No. 4 shall not function, but the petitioner shall pay him the subsistence allowance. The petitioner may also proceed against the Respondent No. 4 departmentally and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after notice to him subject to the decision of the case. It will be open to the concerned Respondents to ask for appropriate modification/clarification of this interim order." 4. In view of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner is arguing this case otherwise, there is already, a dismissal order passed by the petitioner, neither there is a challenge to the proceeding of the departmental enquiry, nor to the quantum of punishment nor an order of dismissal is challenged by the respondent delinquent and therefore, and as there was no legal requirement or as there was no legal duty vested in the petitioner to get approval of the suspension of respondent no. 4 for holding an enquiry or as many as 61 charges levelled against him, the order at Annexure-2 passed by respondent no. 2, dated 24th April, 2003, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no. 4 who has vehemently submitted that in view of Bihar Rajya Arya Pradhinidhi Neyam (freehand translation Bihar State Arya Representative Committee Regulations), which is at Annexure-8 to the Interlocutory Application No. 36 of 2005, the approval for awarding suspension to the delinquent is must and therefore, the order at Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition has been passed by respondent no. 2 which is absolutely just, proper, legal and equitable and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that by virtue of an order passed by the aforesaid Committee dated 6th May, 2003 at Annexure-9 to the Interlocutory Application No. 36 of 2005, the petitioner had no locus standi, power, jurisdiction or authority to suspend respondent no. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that by virtue of an order passed by the aforesaid Committee dated 6th May, 2003 at Annexure-9 to the Interlocutory Application No. 36 of 2005, the petitioner had no locus standi, power, jurisdiction or authority to suspend respondent no. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the President of the petitioner had also revoked the suspension of respondent no. 4 and therefore, also the order passed at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition is true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts and law and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the State adopts the argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the present petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The respondent no. 4 was working as Headmaster/Principal of the petitioner-school. Looking to the charges levelled against the present respondent no. 4, there are as many as 61 charges. This charge-sheet is at Annexure-17 to rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition. Looking to the charges levelled against the respondent no. 4, the main charge is misappropriation of sizable amount of the fees paid by the students. As per one of the charges at serial no. 16, Rs. 4,90,000/- amount was recovered from the students, but, the same was "not deposited in the bank account of the school likewise, as per the charge no, 23, the respondent no. 4 has recovered Rs. 7,93,810/-, but, the same was not deposited and instead of that expenses - Rs. 7,66,354/- has been noted down in -the register. Likewise, charge nos; 19, 20, 21 in all these charges, misappropriation of few hundred, thousands rupees have been narrated. Looking to the nature of the charges, it appears that the present petitioner had no option to suspend the respondent no. 4 for holding effective and neutral departmental proceedings. The respondent no. 4 was suspended vide order dated~ 19th December, 2002. This suspension was not as a punishment, but, it was only a procedure for holding the departmental enquiry proceeding. Looking to the nature of the charges, it appears that the present petitioner had no option to suspend the respondent no. 4 for holding effective and neutral departmental proceedings. The respondent no. 4 was suspended vide order dated~ 19th December, 2002. This suspension was not as a punishment, but, it was only a procedure for holding the departmental enquiry proceeding. (ii) It appears that thereafter the petitioner had conducted the departmental enquiry against the respondent no. 4. A detailed enquiry report has been given, on 11th October, 2003 and thereafter, the respondent no. 4 was awarded punishment of dismissal from the services vide order dated 20th October, 2003 which is at Annexure-22. (iii) It appears that though there are no rules, regulations, which imposes the duty upon the petitioner to get approval, sanction or ratification of suspension either because of the misreading of law or because of misinterpretation of law or either may be because of petitioner is an over cautious, permission was asked from respondent no. 2 for approval of suspension of respondent no. 4 which has been declined by respondent no. 2 vide order dated.24th April, 2003. (iv) It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that as per the Bihar Rajya Arya Pradhinidhi Regulation, especially, as per the regulation no 19(f), the permission of the respondent no. 2 is necessary. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that whenever the punishment of suspension is imposed upon any delinquent then only the aforesaid regulation may be applicable. Looking to the facts of the present case, respondent no. 4 was never suspended towards the punishment, but, he was suspended for holding enquiry and the real punishment of dismissal was awarded vide order dated 20th October, 2003 upon completion of the enquiry on 11th October, 2003. The aforesaid Bihar Rajya Arya Pradhinidhi Regulation No. 19(f) will be applicable only when punishment of suspension is awarded. Suspension was given to respondent no. 4 only for the purpose for holding departmental enquiry so that the respondent no. 4 will stop coming to the school. The purpose of suspension is that evidence may not be tampered by the delinquent. Thus, highest argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the permission was necessary from respondent no. 2 before suspension of the respondent no. 4 under the aforesaid Regulations. 4 will stop coming to the school. The purpose of suspension is that evidence may not be tampered by the delinquent. Thus, highest argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the permission was necessary from respondent no. 2 before suspension of the respondent no. 4 under the aforesaid Regulations. Even if, these rules are applicable, to the respondent no. 4, it envisages suspension as punishment and not suspension for holding departmental enquiry. There is vast difference between these two terminologies. In former case, suspension is awarded at the end of the departmental proceedings whereas in the later case, suspension will be awarded from the very beginning of holding enquiry. In a former case, suspension as a quantum of punishment, whereas in the later case, suspension is matter of procedure or suspension is a means to achieve the end. Sometimes looking to the position and status and the post of the delinquent and looking to the charges levelled against him for holding the neutral departmental proceeding, suspension is necessary so that delinquent being an influential high ranking officer may not attain the office so that he may not tamper with the documents or evidences. It appears that the petitioner has taken recourse of suspension for holding a neutral enquiry and suspension was never imposed as a punishment and therefore, the aforesaid rules are not helpful to the present respondent no. 4. (v) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, that the petitioner was never having power, jurisdiction, or authority to suspend the respondent no. 4. In view of an order passed at Annexure-9 to the I.A. No. 36 of 2005. This contention is also accepted by this Court for the reason that even if Annexure-9 letter is accepted, the same never oust the power, jurisdiction and authority of the present petitioner as a Secretary of the School. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid Annexure-9, it appears that for better and smooth working of the school, some Committee were appointed, but, that does not mean that a power vested in the petitioner-Secretary were taken away nor the Secretary of the School made defunct. (vi) It appears that from the whole petition and various Annexures and Interlocutory Application, counter affidavits and rejoinder, that suspension order was issued for holding effective and neutral enquiry for as many as 61 charges. (vi) It appears that from the whole petition and various Annexures and Interlocutory Application, counter affidavits and rejoinder, that suspension order was issued for holding effective and neutral enquiry for as many as 61 charges. Enquiry was conducted, respondent no. 4 was dismissed in the year 2003. It appears that only fault done by the petitioner is as an over cautious petitioner, it had applied to the respondent no. 2 for getting approval of suspension though there was no statutory duty vested in the petitioner and this permission was declined by the respondent no. 2 vide order at Annexure-2, but, in fact there is no provision which could be pointed out by the respondents that whenever any delinquent is suspended for holding an enquiry, the approval or ratification from the Government authority is must and therefore, in fact, order at Annexure- 2 is having no basis at all, in eyes of law. (vii) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that now the suspension has come to an end. Enquiry is over. Report has also been given by the Enquiry Officer. Management has taken a decision of dismissal of respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 4 has now actually dismissed by order dated 20th October, 2003 and never this departmental enquiry, nor the quantum of punishment, nor the dismissal order has ever been challenged by anyone, despite half a dozen years have been lapsed. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 24th April, 2003 at Annexure-2 passed by respondent no. 2. 9. At this stage, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, that dismissal order also de hors the provisions of certain rules, but, as stated hereinabove, there is no challenge to the dismissal order and respondent no. 4 cannot make any prayer in the petition of the petitioner, preferred by the Management. There is no separate challenge to the dismissal order. There is no petition challenging dismissal order. 10. This petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.