Disposed

Binay Kr Singha v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Aug 2021WP(C)/3579/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension order under Rule 6(2) of Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Court held the proviso applicable since petitioner is on bail, remanding to Director for reasoned order on moral turpitude and government embarrassment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remanded to Director of Secondary Education for reasoned decision on withdrawal of suspension based on moral turpitude and government embarrassment within one month.

Binay Kr Singha Vs the State of Assam and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010100662021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3579/2021

¶5

BINAY KR SINGHA

¶6

S/O- LT. BIHARI SINGHA, R/O- VILL- VOTARGONGAPUR PART-1, P.O. JARAILTOLA BAZAR, P.S. BARKHOLA, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19

¶10

3:THE INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78800

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 09-08-2021

¶17

Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

¶18

Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The writ petitioner is the Headmaster of Jarailtola High School in the Cachar district who was taken into detention on 17.01.2021 by the Police Personnel of Borkhola police station in connection with Borkhola P.S. Case No.12/2021 under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶20

As the petitioner was in detention for over 48 hour, the order dated 12.02.2021 was passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam placing the petitioner under suspension in terms of Rule 6(2) of Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short Rules of 1964). The order of suspension itself provides that the petitioner was released from custody on 29.01.2021.

¶21

The provisio to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 provides that when the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the government or the government servant in the discharge of his duty or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the appointing authority may vacate the order of suspension made or deemed to have been made when he is

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.

¶24

In this petition, the order dated 12.02.2021 placing the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 is being assailed. We are of the view that the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner in the present petition.

¶25

From the order of suspension itself it is revealed that the petitioner has in

¶26

the meantime been released on bail is otherwise not in custody or imprisonment.

¶27

So from the point of view, the said condition precedent of the provisio to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 is satisfied in the case of the petitioner.

¶28

The proviso to Rule 6(2) is further provides that the appointing authority is required to arrived at a satisfaction that the charge against the delinquent is not connected with his position as a government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the government or that the petitioner in the discharge of his duty or the charge was not involved in any moral turpitude.

¶29

We require the Director of Secondary Education to take decision on his own and pass a reasoned order as to whether the charge against the petitioner under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 amounted to

¶30

an act of moral turpitude or not and whether such charge against the petitioner

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

was an embracement to the government in order to withdraw the order of suspension.

¶33

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to take his decision on the aforesaid two aspects and pass a reasoned order whether the charge against the petitioner under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 is an act of moral turpitude and secondly whether withdrawing the order of suspension will cause embarrassment to the government.

¶34

Depending on the decision, the Director may pass a reasoned order. The requirement be done by the Director within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶35

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Binay Kr Singha v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Kr Singha v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jarjina Yesmin Ansari Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ham Ak College of Pharmacy, Dental and Medical Sciences, Nagaon Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Abhoy Paurel and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prodip Kumar Chutia Vs Shri a. B. Md. Eunus and 2 Ors.

Nibaran Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam 6 Ors.