JUDGMENT : The writ petitioner has challenged order dated 30th September, 2009 by which the Registrar General of Marriages, West Bengal issued the same in terms of order dated October 08, 2007 made by the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, thereby restraining the petitioner from functioning as both Marriage Officer and Hindu Marriage Registrar. 2. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order should be set aside and quashed as there was no rule in the Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958 empowering restraint of the functioning of his client as marriage officer akin to suspension. 3. Mr. De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State had on earlier occasion relied on Rule 39(2) of the West Bengal Hindu Registration Rules, 2010 notified on 2nd July, 2010 to submit that any action taken or anything done or order issued, shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of those rules be construed to have been taken, done or issued under the relevant provisions of those rules. Today, Mr. De is unable to demonstrate that the impugned order was an order issued, not inconsistent with the Rules of 2010. He has produced the said order dated October 08, 2010 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, the text of which reproduced below:- “With reference to above, I am directed to re-iterate that there is no provision to suspend any NOMO during pending of any disciplinary proceedings or in contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings in the Marriage Act and Rules framed thereunder. No order for suspension of work can be issued upon any NOMO even he has committed any gross irregularities/mistakes. However, in consideration of the gravity of irregularities/mistakes committ4ed by such errant NOMOS and in the interest of public services, necessary steps towards restraining themselves from performing normal duties as Ntemporarily may be taken.” 4. Rule 39 of the Rules of 2010 provides for penalties for misconduct or gross misconduct which includes suspension of work of up to two years. However, Rule 40 of the said Rules mandates no penalty as specified in Rule 39, shall be imposed on non-official Marriage Officer without giving him an opportunity of being heard in a proceeding to be initiated by the Disciplinary Authority. However, Rule 40 of the said Rules mandates no penalty as specified in Rule 39, shall be imposed on non-official Marriage Officer without giving him an opportunity of being heard in a proceeding to be initiated by the Disciplinary Authority. It is undisputed that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated pursuant to the show-cause notice issued under the earlier Rules which did not have the aforesaid provisions. Thus, the order issued cannot be said to have been issued under any provision of the earlier Rules. Such order cannot also be said to have been issued as not inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules of 2010. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as early as possible.