Gauhati High Court Quashes Teacher's Dismissal After 25-Year Suspension, Orders Full Back Wages and Interest

Guwahati, Assam – May 01, 2025 – In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the dismissal of an Assistant Teacher, Shri Takar Ete , who endured an almost 25-year suspension without proper disciplinary proceedings. Hon’ble Mr. Justice RobinPhukan , in a judgment dated May 1, 2025, slammed the "callousness and high handedness" of the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, for the inordinate delay and procedural illegalities. The court ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with full back wages, pensionary benefits, interest, and costs.

Case Overview

Shri Takar Ete , appointed in 1988 and regularized in 1990, was placed under suspension on September 15, 1994, following a period of absence due to illness in September 1993. For nearly 25 years, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After multiple writ petitions, he was reinstated on August 13, 2020, only to be served a show-cause notice the same day. He retired on April 30, 2022. Subsequently, on May 12, 2023, he was dismissed from service, and his period of absence and suspension was treated as 'no work no pay'.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal in WP(C) No. 4026/2023, alongside an earlier petition, WP(C) No. 1658/2022, for refixing his pay and releasing his salary for the suspension period.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. B. Sinha, argued: * The suspension order was not provided to the petitioner until 2018. * An inordinate and unexplained delay of 25 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings caused severe prejudice. * Procedural illegalities marred the disciplinary inquiry, including non-furnishing of the list of witnesses and denial of an opportunity to contest the proceedings. * The inquiry report was prepared ex-parte. * Subsistence allowance was not paid throughout the suspension, hindering his ability to defend himself, despite a court order for its payment. * The dismissal order was rushed to circumvent court directives.

Respondents' Counsel, Mr. P.N. Sarma (Standing Counsel, Education Dept.), contended: * The petitioner failed to furnish a non-engagement certificate for subsistence allowance as per F.R. 53(2). * The petitioner was absent without authorization and gave contradictory statements. * The disciplinary inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was dismissed for failing to reply to the final show-cause notice based on the inquiry report.

Court's Scrutiny and Key Findings

Justice Phukan meticulously examined the case, highlighting several critical failures by the respondent authorities.

Inordinate Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings

The Court found an "inordinate delay of 25 years in initiating disciplinary proceeding" with "no explanation, let alone a plausible one." Citing Supreme Court precedents like State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan and P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , the Court held: > "Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that delay of long 25 years in initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner caused serious prejudice to him."

Procedural Lapses and Violation of Natural Justice

The judgment underscored gross violations of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

* No List of Witnesses: "Admittedly... no list of witnesses was furnished to him."

* No Examination of Witnesses: "...no witnesses was examined in the proceeding and there is also no record of participation of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry proceeding."

* Ex-Parte Enquiry: "...the report was prepared ex-parte without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner."

* Denial of Opportunity to Reply: The petitioner's request for a 10-day extension to reply to the inquiry report, due to illness, was ignored, and the dismissal order was passed ex-parte.

The Court observed: > "Since in the present case, the enquiry was conducted defying the procedure, as contemplated under the Rules... simply on the basis of the alleged statement of the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order, dated 12.05.2023, was passed and as such... the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed."

Non-Payment of Subsistence Allowance

The Court severely criticized the non-payment of subsistence allowance for the entire 25-year suspension period, even after a specific court direction. Referring to Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , it noted that penury due to non-payment of subsistence allowance can vitiate ex-parte proceedings. > "The petitioner had submitted number of representations with regard to the same, but the same failed to evoke any response. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner herein." The Court also noted that the petitioner was never formally asked to submit a non-engagement certificate under F.R. 53(2).

'No Work No Pay' Principle Misapplied

The authorities had applied the 'no work no pay' principle to deny salary for the suspension period. The Court, citing Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman , ruled this inapplicable: > "The principle „No work, no pay’ is applicable only when an employee is absent due to his own act or omission/fault. But, when the employee is kept away from the work by an act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’." The Court found that the petitioner was willing to work after his initial illness but was prevented by the authorities' actions.

Final Judgment and Reliefs

The Gauhati High Court allowed both writ petitions, granting comprehensive relief to Shri Takar Ete :

1. Dismissal Order Quashed: The termination order dated 12.05.2023 was set aside.

2. Suspension Period as Duty: The period from 15.09.1994 to 13.08.2020 shall be treated as on duty, with full salary.

3. Regularization of Absence: The period from 01.11.1993 to 14.09.1994 to be regularized by granting appropriate leave, with due salary.

4. Salary Post-Reinstatement: Full salary from 13.08.2020 until retirement on 30.04.2022 to be paid.

5. Pensionary Benefits: All legally entitled pensionary benefits to be granted.

6. Interest: Interest @ 6% per annum on unpaid salaries (from 15.09.1994 till payment) and on pensionary benefits (from retirement till payment).

7. Costs: Rs. 50,000/- as costs to be paid by respondent No. 2 (Director of Elementary Education) to the petitioner.

8. Enquiry Mandated: The Commissioner and Secretary, School Education Department, was directed to conduct an inquiry into how the petitioner remained suspended for 25 years and take remedial measures.

All payments and actions are to be completed within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The Court concluded: > "This callousness and high handedness of the respondent authorities made the petitioner to suffer till his retirement... His human rights, his fundamental rights and all other rights stands violated in the hand of the state respondents."

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities about the imperative of timely and fair disciplinary action, adherence to natural justice, and the financial and human cost of prolonged, unjustified suspension.