Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Md. Shahjahan Ali S/o Late Saman Ali Munshi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 3254, 5864 of 2015
Decided On : 09-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S.R. Barbhuiya, M. Hussain, H.R.A. Choudhury, F.U. Barbhuiya.
For the Respondent: N.J. Khataniar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to prescribed rules, including the requirement for an inquiry and the provision of adequate safeguards to the delinquent employee.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Recovery from Pensionary Benefits - Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 9, 14 - Inquiry Procedure - Violation of Rules - Setting Aside of Penalty - Pensionary Benefits Calculation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Headmaster of a school, was involved in a disciplinary proceeding resulting in an order for recovery from his pensionary benefits. The petitioner had acted as the Principal of an upgraded Higher Secondary School without a formal order, leading to his suspension and subsequent appeal under Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Director, Secondary Education imposed a penalty without holding an inquiry or following mandatory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions, though not strictly in accordance with the law, were known to the authorities, and the disciplinary proceedings violated the prescribed rules. The court set aside the penalty of recovery from the petitioner's pensionary benefits and directed the calculation of his pension based on his position as the Headmaster of the High School at the time of retirement.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's role as the Principal of the upgraded Higher Secondary School, the violation of disciplinary rules, and the imposition of a penalty without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings violated the prescribed rules, including the requirement for an inquiry and the need to provide the delinquent with an opportunity to offer views on the findings. The court also emphasized the mandatory requirement to grant adequate safeguards to a government employee in disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the penalty and directing that no further recovery be made from the petitioner. The court also directed the calculation and release of the petitioner's pensionary benefits based on his position as the Headmaster of the High School at the time of retirement.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Both these writ petitions being connected and filed by the same petitioner, those were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The controversy raised in these matters is relating to the action of the respondents in completing a disciplinary proceeding culminating in an order dated 10.08.2015 of recovery from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
3. Bereft of the details, the facts projected are that the petitioner was the founder Headmaster of the Char Anchalik High School, Kalarchar (hereafter referred to as School) which was established on 01.03.1982. The said School was provincialised on 19.11.1991 and the petitioner continued as the Headmaster. The School was upgraded to a Higher Secondary School vide order dated 21.05.1993. Subsequently, vide an order dated 13.03.1996, the posts for the Higher Secondary School, including the post of Principal were allotted. Vide an order dated 25.03.1996, it was directed that the Headmaster of the High School will act as the In-charge Principal of the Higher Secondary School and the petitioner continued as Principal of the Higher Secondary School. The petitioner had submitted representation on 10.11.2011 with a request to give the status as a regular Principal and the aforesaid representation was forwarded by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari vide communication dated 19.01.2012. However, instead of taking care of the situation, an order was passed on 16.09.2014 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner had accordingly preferred an appeal under Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) against the aforesaid order of suspension. The authorities thereafter had issued a show cause notice on 20.10.2014 which the petitioner claims to have replied on 28.10.2014. However, another show-cause notice dated 02.01.2015 was issued. It has been highlighted that the issuing date of the show cause notice was 07.02.2015 and it was served on the petitioner on 12.02.2015. In the meantime, on 31.01.2015, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner thereafter had filed the first writ petition, being WP(C)/3254/2015. During the pendency of the same, the impugned order dated 10.08.2015 was passed which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition.
4. I have heard Shri H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Education Department is represented by Shri N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel.
5. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations are without any basis as at no point of time, any misconduct of the petitioner can be pointed out. He submits that the High School was upgraded to a Higher Secondary School and the action of the petitioner to act as the Principal of the upgraded Higher Secondary School was within the knowledge of the authorities. It is submitted that the letter dated 19.01.2012 of the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari would bear the testimony to the effect that all actions taken by the petitioner were within the knowledge of the authorities and those were done in the greater interest of the institution.
6. Apart from lack of any basis for leveling charges, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is gross violation of the procedures laid down in the Rules. By referring to Rule 9 of the said Rules, it is submitted that the charges are required to be proved on the basis of evidence. Though in a given case, the Disciplinary Authority may act as the Inquiry Authority, the procedure for establishing the charges cannot be dispensed with on the mere pretext that no defence statement was furnished by the delinquent employee. It is submitted that in any case, there was a clear denial of the charges by the petitioner in his reply dated 28.10.2014 and th
