IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
MOJIBUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA S/O ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 2279 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Service Law - Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Departmental proceeding - Suspension proceedings - Suspension of Service - Under no circumstance an employee can make a representation seeking variations in his service conditions and any act of submitting a representation would be an act of misconduct inviting a proceeding under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
Manner in which the petitioner was placed under suspension, the reasons thereof as revealed from the records and from the act of the authority who had suspended the petitioner in such arbitrary, unreasonable and high handed manner, which is contrary to the democratic principles as well as that of the Constitution of India, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) is imposed on the respondents to be paid to the petitioner. As it is an act of a particular individual official of a Department of the Government of Assam, the cost be paid to the petitioner be recovered from the said official and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam is directed to ensure that the burden of the cost is not borne on the public exchequer.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
1. Heard Ms. N. Khatun, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondents no. 6, Finance Department, Government of Assam.
2. The petitioner is the head teacher of Baiyerkandi LP School in the Hailakandi district and was placed under suspension as per the order dated 19.01.2019 of FR Laskar, ACS, District Development Commissioner cum District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi.
3. The order is extracted as below:
“ORDERS
Pending drawl of departmental proceeding Sri Mozibur Rahman Barbhuiya, HT, Baiyerkandi LP School is hereby placed under suspension.
During the period of suspension the teacher concern is allowed to draw subsistence allowances as per rules in force.
This order shall come into force with immediate effect.
Sd/-
F.R. Laskar ACS
District Development Commissioner cum District
Ele. Edn. Officer, Hailakandi.”
4. All that the order reads is that pending drawl of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner is placed under suspension and during the period of suspension, he will be paid the subsistence allowances and further the order shall come into force with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted a representation before the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi on 24.01.2022 requesting that the suspension order be recalled and he be reinstated in service. According to the petitioner there was no rhyme or reason justifying the suspension and further the order of suspension states that it was done pending drawl of a departmental proceeding but no departmental proceeding had been initiated.
5. In the circumstance, we required the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi to remain personally before the Court along with the records to explain as to why the petitioner was placed under suspension and whether any departmental proceeding had been initiated.
6. The reasoning as to why the petitioner was placed under suspension is necessary inasmuch as by this writ petition the petitioner claiming the full salary and allowances for the period for which he was under suspension i.e. from 19.01.2019 to 28.02.2021. The entitlement of the petitioner for salary and allowances can only be decided by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances under which he was placed under suspension and the reasons thereof and further as to whether any order acceptable in law is available on record which may provide that the petitioner would not be entitled to the salary and allowances for the said period.
7. Mr. I.H. Barbhuiya, District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi is present before the Court along with the records.
8. Upon examination of records, Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department makes a candid statement that no record is available as regards the suspension of the petitioner other than the order of suspension itself. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted through the Block Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi as to under what circumstances and for what reasons the petitioner was placed under suspension.
9. The enquiry report of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi dated 01.02.2022 is extracted as below:
“With reference to the subject cited above I have the honour to furnish below a brief enquiry report in respect of the suspension of Sri Mozibur Rahman Barhuiya, HT, Baiyerkandi L.P. School who was placed under suspension vide DEEO, Hailakandi order issued under Memo No. DEH-7/Pt/2017-18/1967-73 dated 19.1.2019.
During the enquiry, Sri Mozibur Rahman Barbhuiya, HT, Baiyerkandi L.P. School states that while he was performing his duties regularly and due to his illness he submitted an application on 14.1.2019 to transfer him at any school to his vicinity nearby roadside. But, he was suspended by the then District Elem
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.