Allowed

Mrs. Rashmi Rekha Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Feb 2020WP(C)/598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging salary deduction for one day's sick absence without show-cause or enquiry. Court held deduction impermissible as penalty without due process and directed adjustment against casual leave with reimbursement of any deducted amount.

What did the court decide?

Directed adjustment of absence against casual leave and reimbursement of deducted salary.

Mrs. Rashmi Rekha Devi Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010007712016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 598/2016

¶5

1:MRS. RASHMI REKHA DEVI

¶6

W/O- DAYAL SARANIA, VILL.- SONAPUR, P.S.- MUSHALPUR, P.O.- AHOPA, DIST.- BAKSA, BTAD, ASSAM- 781373.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY COMMISSIONER and SECY. EDUCATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MD. B ISLAM R-4

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶14

ORDER

¶15

12.02.2020

¶16

Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J.

¶17

Talukdar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, BTC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶18

2. According to the petitioner, though the matter relates to deduction of one day's salary,

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

it has huge implication for the petitioner in as much as if there be a service break on account of the deduction, it will amount to punishment as well break in service and will have deleterious effect at the time of getting retiral benefit. The petitioner is a Sanskrit Teacher in Chakadal High School who could not attend the school on 06.06.2015 because of sudden illness for which the petitioner had sent a message to the school authorities through SMS saying “I am in sick, so I cannot go to school” and subsequently produced a medical certificate. However, unfortunately, the Headmistress had deducted one day's salary for the absence on 06.06.2015 without any show-cause or any opportunity of being heard, which according to the petitioner is not permissible.

¶21

3. It is also submitted that the petitioner has 15 days of casual leave in her credit and the authorities could have adjusted against one of those 15 days casual leave available in her account. However, the authorities without making any other alternative means to deal with the said absence, which was due to her illness, the authorities i.e. the Headmistress of the school had directed deduction of one day's salary. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had submitted several representations including on 21.09.2015 to modify the said pay cut order. However, the Headmistress rejected the said claim on the ground that the petitioner had intentionally remained absent from her duty without any leave application and it amounts to misconduct on the part of the petitioner as can be seen from the response of the Headmistress dated 31.10.2015 addressed to the counsel of the petitioner.

¶22

4. If the stand of the school is that the aforesaid act amounts to misconduct, it rather reinforces the contention of the petitioner that if it is by way of penalty, in which event, the petitioner ought to have been heard and necessary enquiry ought to have been conducted,

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

which having been not done, this Court is of the view that such an order of penalty could not have been imposed on the petitioner. If the authorities considered that the aforesaid act amounts to willful negligence in duty and as such misconduct, the authorities ought to have taken up certain proceeding, which having been not done, this Court is satisfied that the aforesaid deduction of one day's salary is not permissible in law.

¶25

5. Accordingly, it is directed that the aforesaid day's absence shall be adjusted against one of the aforesaid casual leaves available with the petitioner's service and if any amount had already been deducted from the salary of the petitioner due to the said impugned action of the Headmistress of the school, the same may be reimbursed to the petitioner.

¶26

6. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands allowed.

¶27

Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Mrs. Rashmi Rekha Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Rashmi Rekha Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Stuti Parashar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hajera Begum Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sunam Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Amlangshu Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ganeswar Saharia Vs Prahlad Ch. Das and 3 Ors.

Nilima Nath and Anr. Vs Shamser Singh and 3 Ors.