JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification dated 03.08.2004 whereby decision has been taken that the petitioner will not receive any amount except suspension allowance for the suspension period and further direction upon the respondents to grant and pay arrears of full salary along with interest for the suspension period i.e. 12.09.2001 to 18.12.2002 minus the subsistence allowance and further for direction upon the respondents to re-post the petitioner in the said school. 2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioner, who was working as Headmaster in Ram Ratan High School, Dhori was suspended by respondent no. 3-Director, Secondary Education for certain allegation vide office order dated 12.09.2001 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2127 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2002 and the matter was remitted to Secretary, Human Resource Development Department to pass final order in departmental proceeding taking into consideration the enquiry report, if any submitted by the enquiry officer. However, against that order the petitioner preferred appeal by filing L.P.A. No. 338 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2002 observing therein if ultimately the petitioner is exonerated of the charges, he shall be re-posted at the place where he was working at the time of his being placed under suspension. It has further been averred that later on the Director, Secondary Education exonerated the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2003 and posted the petitioner at High School, Dhori but vide notification dated 03.08.2004 it was decided that the petitioner will not receive any amount except suspension allowance for the suspension period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the charges, relating to embezzlement and misuse of government fund, leveled against the petitioner was proved except, as alleged, violation of fundamental rules and even for that it was directed to give warning and taking into consideration these facts, he was exonerated in departmental proceeding by office order dated 13.09.2003 and posted the petitioner at High School, Dhori; hence, the issue was set at rest by passing order dated 13.09.2003. Furthermore, warning is not a punishment and the impugned order at Annexure 7 has not been passed under Rule 97 (2) of the Service Rules. Furthermore, warning is not a punishment and the impugned order at Annexure 7 has not been passed under Rule 97 (2) of the Service Rules. But, to utter surprise, notification dated 03.08.2004 was issued whereby decision has been taken that the petitioner will not receive any amount except suspension allowance for the suspension period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before passing the impugned order dated 03.08.2004 neither any show cause notice was issued nor any cogent reason has been assigned to differ with order dated 13.09.2003 whereby the petitioner was exonerated from charges in the departmental proceedings; rendering the action of the respondents violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in a similar case, in the case of one Nand Singh, Headmaster, High School, Jharia in case of award of warning; full salary for the period of suspension period has been given and petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the order passed in L.P.A No. 338 of 2002 dated 17.12.2002, the then Secretary after hearing the parties and on examination the papers on record passed a reasoned order dated 01.08.2003, communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 11.08.2003 wherein charge of financial irregularities have been proved and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from Ram Rudra Uchcha Vidyayala, Chas to Ram Ram Ratan Uchcha Vidyalayam Bokaro by the Director, Secondary Education vide order dated 13.09.2003. Besides, the petitioner was also given warning punishment vide memo dated 15.09.2003, which was amended vide memo dated 3.2.2005. It has submitted with vehemence that on the basis of findings in order dated 01.08.2003, the government decided not to release full salary of the suspension period except subsistence allowance vide notification dated 03.08.2004. Referring to Rule 97 (1) of the Service Code, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the case at hand, charges leveled against the petitioner has been partially proved; hence, the authority has rightly considering the material available on record and passed the order dated 03.08.2004 whereby the petitioner was denied salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. 5. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).Basing on charges relating to embezzlement and misuse of government fund the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding. From perusal of order dated 11.08.2003, passed by respondents in compliance of order dated 17.12.2002 passed in L.P.A. No. 338 of 2002, it appears that the respondents-authorities after hearing the parties at length and scrutinizing the relevant papers; disposed of the departmental proceeding and came to a definite finding that out of three charges only charge with regard to financial irregularity was proved and other charges in particular charge related to embezzlement and misuse of government fund was not proved and accordingly it was suggested to pass appropriate order with regard to strong warning and he was transferred to another school. (ii).Basing on the findings recorded in order dated 11.08.2003, impugned notification dated 03.08.2004 whereby the petitioner was denied salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. From perusal of order dated 03.08.2004, it appears that no reasoning has been assigned for imposing punishing of withholding salary for the period of suspension nor any reasoning has been assigned for differing with the opinion given in order dated 11.08.2003 nor the petitioner was afforded with any opportunity while differing with the opinion of the disciplinary authority. (iii).Furthermore, from perusal of order dated 14.09.2004 at Annexure 8 to the writ application, it appears that in a similar case in the case of one Nand Singh, Headmaster, High School, Jharia who was also awarded warning; full salary for the period of suspension period has been given and the petitioner has been denied subjecting the petitioner to hostile discrimination. 6. As a logical sequiter to the aforesaid facts and rasons, the impugned notification dated 03.08.2004 is quashed and set aside and respondents is directed to pass appropriate for payment of full salary minus subsistence allowance, in view of the observation made herein above and relevant service rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.