JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. M. J. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. Muchahary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The Office Note is not clear as to whether the service upon the respondent No.4 is complete. Be that as it may, as the learned counsel for the petitioner is only agitating the further continuation of the suspension order to be bad on the ground of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. The Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Dipak Mali, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition can be disposed of in absence of the respondent No.4.

3. The facts involved in the instant case is that the petitioner was appointed as the Headmaster of Patidarrang Vidyapith High School, Kamrup vide an order dated 05.08.2017 by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Subsequent thereto, while the petitioner was rendering service as the Headmaster of Patidarrang Vidyapith High School, Kamrup, a FIR was filed by one Md. Mostafa Ali against the petitioner which was registered and numbered as Baihata P.S. Case No.106/2022, registered under Sections 354 (A)/509 of the IPC read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. Thereupon, it appears that the Director of Secondary Education had vide an order dated 04.04.2022 placed the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of Departmental Proceedings in exercise of powers under Rule 6 (1) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 04.07.2022 stating inter-alia that he had been released on bail by this Court and even after a lapse of 90 days from the date of his suspension, the Departmental Proceedings has not been initiated for which the petitioner ought to be reinstated.

4. Subsequent thereto, on 22.08.2022, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-the Director of Secondary Education had issued show cause notice/the Memorandum of Charges to the petitioner containing definitive charges against the petitioner. In terms with the statement of allegation which was enclosed to the show cause notice, the charges leveled against the petitioner was that while the petitioner was in service and serving as the Headmaster in Patidarrang Vidyapith High School, Kamrup, news were published in the print and electronic media with photograph regarding alleged involvement of sexual exploitation of the students. The local people also staged protest publicly in that regard. A case under Sections 354(A)/509/106 of the IPC was registered in Baihata Chariali Police Station against the petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner was charged with breach of trust, a cognizable offence under the IPC, violation of Government guidelines/procedure. This Court, however, is surprised to take note of that in the show cause notice, the petitioner was only asked to show cause as to why penalty prescribed in Clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 7 of the Rule of 1964 should not be inflicted upon the petitioner. It may be relevant to take note of that the penalties prescribed in Clause (i) to (iii) of Rule 7 in terms with Rule 9 (11) of the Rules of 1964 comes within the ambit of minor penalties. It further reveals that the petitioner has submitted the reply to the show cause notice on 31.08.2022. It further appears from the record that the school wherein the petitioner was serving as the Headmaster had adopted certain resolutions not to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent authorities of continuation of suspension order which was in violation to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.5209/2022. This