B.R. Gavai, J.

1. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging inter-alia the order passed by Education Officer dated 24-3-1986, by which the absence of the petitioner for the period 1-10-1984 to 31-3-1985 was treated as unauthorised absence and the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad dated 25-2-2000, granting ex-post facto sanction to the aforesaid order, issued by Block Education Officer, the order dated 27-2-1986 issued by the Block Education Officer, thereby imposing penalty of stopping of two increments of the petitioner and the order dated 6-11-1985, issued by Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Karanja.

2. 2. The Facts in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition, are as under:

That the petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher, in the year 1960 and had an unblemished record till 1984. The petitioner, was transferred in 1984, from Chandewani to Bondarthana, vide order dated 17-9-1984, by way of Samayojan i.e. adjustment/absorption of surplus teacher, from one school to another school. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the transfer by way of Samayojan, could only be done within the Kendra and not to a different Kendra and as such he represented to the Education Officer, making various representations for cancelling the said order. The Education Officer, after due enquiry, issued directions to the Block Education Officer, Karanja, who by order dated 31-3-1985, cancelled the impugned order dated 17-9-1984 w.e.f. 17-9-1984.

1. 3. The petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs. 20/-, by the Block Education Officer by order dated 6-11-1985, for not preparing the unit-wise and subjectwise plan of the concerned classes. The petitioner, vide show cause notice, dated 31-12-1985 was asked to show cause, as to why the action for stopping one increment should not be taken against him, for non-fulfilment of targets, of Family Planning, meant for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Karanja, vide order dated 27-2-1986 stopped two annual increments of the petitioner, with permanent effect, for having committed dereliction of duty, in achieving the targets of the family planning for past several years.

2. 4. We have heard Shri Rajguru, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri A.B. Choudhari, learned counsel on behalf of respondents, No. 1, 4 and 5.

5. Insofar as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, since the impugned order of transfer, dated 17-9-1984 transferring the petitioner by way of Samayojan, was itself cancelled, with retrospective effect, by the competent authority, vide its

order dated 25-1-1985, after realising the error committed by it, the respondents ought to have regularized, the alleged absence of the petitioner, for the period 1-10-1984 to 31-3-1985. It is thus submitted, that the action on the part of the respondents, in treating the said period, as unauthorised absence and as leave without pay, vide order 24-3-1986 was unjust and illegal. In support of this contention, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ramesh Motilal Khandelwal v. Zilla Parishad Akola reported in 1992 (I) Mh.L.J. Page 325.

3. 6. Insofar as, the second grievance is concerned the petitioner, submits that, the order dated 6-11-1985, by which a fine of Rs. 20/- was imposed, by the Block Education Officer, is clearly without authority of law for want of such punishment having not been provided, under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, applicable to the Zilla Parishad Employees. In his submission such a punishment could not have been imposed, as such order passed in this behalf, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. 7. Insofar as, the third grievance is concerned, the petitioner submits that, the order dated 27-2-1986, whereby two annual increments with permanent effect,