Allowed

Charu Das Alias Saru Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/1478/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Headmistress's suspension from duty. The Court found no reason for suspension given the absence was medical, the petitioner posed no risk to records, and she was already suspended over 10 months. The suspension order was set aside, though departmental proceedings could still ensue.

What did the court decide?

The order of suspension dated 19.05.2020 was interfered with and set aside. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

Charu Das Alias Saru Das Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010038512021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1478/2021

¶5

CHARU DAS ALIAS SARU DAS W/O BOLEN KALITA RESIDENT OF SONAPUR (MILANPUR)SONAPUR COLLEGE GARE, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM, 782402

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶9

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶10

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶11

KAMRUP M ASSAM 781008

¶12

4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DIMORIA KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 781015

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS. GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 78100

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

08.03.2021

¶20

Heard Mr. PKR Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PK Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam.

¶21

The petitioner, who is a Headmistress of Padma Ram LP School at Sonapur under the Kamrup(M) district was warned by the District Elementary Education Officer Kamrup(M) by the letter dated 28.06.2019 to not remain unauthorisedly absent without prior permission of the higher authorities. The communication indicates that when the BEEO Dimoria went for inspection to the school concerned on 26.04.2019 he found that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 09.04.2019 to 20.04.2019. After warning the petitioner by the communication dated 28.06.2019, the petitioner was also asked to submit a written clarification. The petitioner submitted her written clarification on 01.07.2019 stating that she was absent from 09.04.2019 upto 20.04.2019 on a medical ground and she had duly informed the President of the School Managing Committee and after that she had visited a Doctor for medical treatment and the Doctor had advised her complete bed rest w.e.f. 09.04.2019 upto 20.04.2019.

¶22

In the circumstance, the petitioner by the order dated 19.05.2020 of the Director of Elementary Education Assam was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 19.05.2020, the writ petition was instituted.

¶23

Mr. PKR Choudhury, learned counsel raises two-fold contention that firstly, the reason for which the petitioner was suspended pending drawal of departmental proceeding did not merit the petitioner to be suspended at all considering the aspect that there was neither any scope to manipulate the official records of any allegation made against the petitioner, nor she was involved in threatening with any of the prospective witnesses. The allegation against the petitioner was of remaining un-

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

authorizedly absent for which the petitioner had given the explanation that she was absent due to medical cause and the whole aspect of the petitioner remaining absent would be a matter of record. Secondly, neither a departmental proceeding had been drawn by issuing a charge-memo against the petitioner nor any review had been undertaken.

¶26

Without going into the second contention being raised, we have taken note of that by the communication dated 28.06.2019, the petitioner had already been warned and she had also given her clarification that she was absent due to medical cause. If the manner in which the petitioner had remained absent, would be inappropriate or against any established procedure of law, the authorities had already contemplated for drawing up of a departmental proceeding against her and that would have been sufficient for the purpose. But, we find no reason as to why the petitioner was suspended in the circumstance, considering the aspect that there is no possibility of the petitioner tempering the official records or threatening the official witnesses, if the petitioner is allowed to remain in office. Further the petitioner is already in suspension for more than 10(ten) months.

¶27

Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that further suspension of the petitioner shall be unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the order of suspension dated 19.05.2019 stands interfered and set aside.

¶28

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. However, interference with the order of suspension shall not preclude the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, if so advised.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Charu Das Alias Saru Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charu Das Alias Saru Das v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Dipali Sen Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dasarath Goala Vs Bijoya Choudhury

Ranjita Ray Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bimala Barman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Lookman Hakim Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shah Alom Sheikh Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.