Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present application is against the order of termination issued by the District Education Officer, Vaishali. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rule 21 of the Rules the power to inflict major punishment vests with the Deputy Development Commissioner and as such the order passed by the District Education Officer, Vaishali is nullity in the eye of law. He also submitted that while inflicting the punishment the respondents have not followed the minimum procedure to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice and without any show cause notice, without opportunity of hearing one day ahead the date of retirement , the petitioner was inflicted such punishment in hot haste simply because charges against the petitioner pertains to taking illegal gratification and petitioner was caught red handed. Counsel submits that no witness of trap was examined in the departmental proceeding. He was not convicted in the criminal case by Competent Court and under the aforesaid circumstance inflicting major punishment even otherwise is unsustainable. 4. Considering the fact that the Rule does not confer the jurisdiction to the District Education Officer, Vaishali to inflict major punishment, the order contained in Annexure-16 and 17 in C.W.J.C. No. 8521 of 2014 and Annexure-17 in C.W.J.C. No. 11744 of 2014 cannot sustain. It is accordingly quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to workout the consequential benefit of superannuation of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.