SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 267

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Jakir Hussain Son Of MD. Eyashin Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 4 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 3272 / 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MR. S K DAS, MR A I TALUKDAR,MR D BARMAN
For the Respondent: SC, SEC. EDU., GA, ASSAM

IMPORTANT POINT
The administrative authority must consider prior inquiry findings before taking action against an employee; failure to do so renders the action unjustified.

Headnote:

(A) Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Writ petition challenging the order relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal - Allegations against the petitioner found to be false after inquiry - The Director's order was based on unsubstantiated allegations and did not consider the inquiry report - The court emphasized that the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools could not proceed with further allegations after the inquiry found none against the petitioner. (Paras 24 , 25 , 26 )

(B) Administrative authority - The authority must consider prior inquiry reports before taking action against an employee - The court ruled that the Director's action was not justified as it was based on previously inquired allegations. (Paras 24 , 25 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner was relieved from the Principal's post based on allegations of misconduct, which were found to be false after an inquiry. The Director's order did not consider the inquiry report that exonerated the petitioner.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were not sustainable and set aside the order relieving him from his position.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations against the petitioner warranted his removal and if the Director's order was justified without considering the inquiry report.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Director's decision lacked justification as it ignored the findings of the inquiry that cleared the petitioner of the allegations.

Result: The order dated 19.06.2024, relieving the petitioner, is set aside, allowing him to continue as Principal.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the order, dated 19.06.2024, issued by the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, relieving him from the charge of the post of the Principal of Krishnai Higher Secondary School, Goalpara.

3. As agreed to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken-up for final hearing and disposal.

4. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher(PGT) in Political Science subject in Krishnai Higher Secondary School, Goalpara, w.e.f. 01.02.2014. After having served for around 8 years in the school, a vacancy having arisen in the post of Principal of the said school; the petitioner was allowed by the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools to hold the academic charge of Krishnai Higher Secondary School, Goalpara vide order, dated 12.04.2022. Thereafter, a proposal was submitted by the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools before the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, to permit the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the said school. Accordingly, the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide order, dated 04.07.2023, allowed the petitioner, herein, to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the said school along with financial power.

5. It is to be noted in the writ petition that during the year 2021, while the term of the then School Management and Development Committee was coming to an end, steps were taken for constitution of a new School Management and Development Committee for the said school. Accordingly, in terms of the guidelines existing in the matter; a General Meeting was convened on 29.09.2021. In the said meeting, one Mehabub Ali came to be recommended as the President of the new School Management and Development Committee of the school, in question. However, the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, vide order, dated 16.12.2022, proceeded to appoint a person, namely, Rabiul Hoque, as the President of the new School Management and Development Committee of the said school. Being aggrieved, said Mehabub Ali had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)279/2023, challenging the recommendations so made in favour of said Rabiul Hoque. This Court, vide order, dated 18.01.2023, on examination of the issue arising in the matter, was pleased to suspend the said order, dated 16.12.2022, appointing said Rabiul Hoque as the President of Krishnai Higher Secondary School, Goalpara. It is contended in the writ petition that another person, namely, Rishiraj Das, Assistant Commissioner, Goalpara, was allowed to hold the charge of the post of President of the School Management and Development Committee of the said school.

6. It has been further contended in the writ petition that said Rabiul Hoque was instrumental in lodging of complaints against the petitioner, herein, before various authorities including the Departmental Minister alleging that the petitioner during his tenure as the in-charge Principal of the said school, had collected exorbitant fees from the students of the school and also collected money for allotment of shops constructed illegally inside the campus of the said school and also, the petitioner had published the pre-test result of Class X of the said school twice on 25.10.2023. That apart, in the said complaints, questions were also raised with regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner, herein. The complaints on being so received against the petitioner, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had directed for an inquiry in the matter thro


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top