Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the teacher-in-charge of the school with respect to which the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE). Contai Sub-division issued the order dated January 31, 2006 which is: "Since a dispute against the Headmaster of Panchrole High School the salary from January 2006 cannot be released in favour of the staffs of Panchrole High School until further information." I agree with advocate for the petitioner that the additional district inspector of schools abused his administrative power by issuing the unprecedented order postponing release of salary of the members of the staff of the school.
(2.) There is no dispute that certain proceedings initiated against the headmaster of the school deciding to suspend him are awaiting approval of the board, as that is necessary under relevant provisions of the 1969 Management Rules. It is beyond comprehension how such proceedings were to impress upon the additional district inspector of schools to issue such an arbitrary order as is impugned in the writ petition.
(3.) May be that that headmaster of the institution has been facing proceedings initiated against him by the school authority. But that cannot be used as a weapon to punish the members of the staff of the school in that they must not get salary from January, 2006. In my view, this is one of the rarest cases where the administrative power has been abused so grossly by a person who had not reason to exercise his administrative power for the purpose in question.;