Abdul Kuddus Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC010183352023

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:15128

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4810/2023

¶6

ABDUL KUDDUS SON OF - OSMAN ALI MANDAL, R/O- VILL.- PALAHARTARI, P.O. AND P.S.- NAGARBERA, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781127.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DIRECTOR ASSAM MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT BOARD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-06

¶10

ASSAM.

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARMUP DADARA ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/11

¶13

PIN- 781104.

¶14

5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KAMRUP CHAMARIA BLOCK ASSAM PIN- 781127. 6:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CID ULUBARI GUWAHATI-0

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. J DEKA, MR S SARMA,MS. A TALUKDAR,MS. A TALUKDAR

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. S KASHYAP (R-3),GA, ASSAM,MR. B DEOURI (R-6,7)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 10.11.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5; Mr. S. Kashyap, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 3; and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶22

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

¶23

Page No.# 3/11

¶24

petitioner has challenged the condition stated in the re-instatement order dated 07.09.2022, regarding entrusting the senior most Assistant Teacher with the financial power of the Madrassa, in which the petitioner was functioning as Headmaster; and also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to act as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO); and further prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to release the 3% D.A. increment which was dropped w.e.f. July, 2021 to 2023; to regularize the service gap period since 04.11.2020 to 07.09.2020; to release the time scale benefit for completion of 10 years of service; and to release the arrear salary i.e. 50% salary from 04.11.2020 to 30.04.2021 and 25% salary from 01.05.2021 to 07.09.2022.

¶25

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

¶26

“The petitioner is the founder Headmaster of Pahartari Habibia M.E. Madrassa, under the Chamaria Block, Kamrup, which was established in the year 1985. The said Madrassa was provincialized, vide order dated 19.12.2013, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Thereafter, on 04.11.2020, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Kamrup on the ground that some students of the said Madrassa had availed the Minority scholarship for the year 2019 showing themselves as the boarders of the school hostel, whereas the school is not having any hostel. Thereafter, the petitioner was served a show cause notice, dated 27.10.2021. The petitioner then filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 03.11.2021. Thereafter, the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Chamaria, Kamrup had also submitted a report dated 14.02.2022, before

¶27

Page No.# 4/11

¶28

the Director of Elementary Education, Assam clarifying the allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, having been satisfied with the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of the report dated 14.02.2022, given by BEEO, Chamaria, the petitioner was reinstated in service, vide order dated 07.09.2022, with the condition that the senior most Assistant Teacher will continue the work related to the financial matters in the school until further order, and this condition in the order dated 07.09.2022, is the subject matter, which is being challenged in this petition.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner that he was placed under suspension by the respondent authorities without verifying the actual facts in respect of the financial irregularities and the persons who are alleged to have committed the irregularities are being arrayed as accused and enquiry is being proceeded in that manner, and that neither the name of the petitioner nor the name of the Madrassa is reflected in the FIR dated 28.08.2020 or the charge-sheet submitted in connection with the said FIR, and that the concerned authority was pleased to drop the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, although he was placed under suspension, but after giving the show cause reply, the concerned authority did not continue the departmental proceeding.”

¶30

4. The respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that as information received from the DEEO, Kamrup, Amingaon, the verification of application for minority scholarship is done at two levels after online application filled by the applicants on NSP portal, i.e., one at the school level (INO) and other at the district level (DNO), and the Institute Nodal Officer (INO) has to verify thoroughly the beneficiary list he has prepared at his own

¶31

Page No.# 5/11

¶32

school level, and after verifying all the aspects, the lists of beneficiary students applying for minority scholarship is sent to the District Nodal Officer for necessary approval, and that in fact, the institution head i.e. Head Master as Institute Nodal Officer has to play a vital role in the entire process of scholarship, and he should be aware as to how many students are staying in hostel. It is also stated that there was no hostel facility in the petitioner’s school.

¶33

4.1. It is also stated that as per report of the DEEO, Kamrup, Amingaon, the petitioner was very much aware of that the school did not have any hostel facility for minority students, and he has deliberately listed some students’ name in the scholarship list as boarders of school’s hostel, though they did not have hostel facility in the school for minority students, for which a huge amount of Government money have been misused, and that the petitioner had also confessed his guilt before the hearing committee, which was held at the district level on 12.10.2020, in presence of the then BEEO, Chamaria.

¶34

4.2. It is also stated that the DEEO, Kamrup, Amingaon had placed the petitioner under suspension, vide letter no.

¶35

DEEO/Kam/Scholarship/RTI/2020/4538-42, dated 04.11.2020, as per Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, due to his involvement in receipt of Minority Scholarship fraudulently. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide letter No. ECA-34/2021/21, dated 27.10.2021, and that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had issued a letter, vide letter No. ECA34/2021/27, dated 20.12.2021, written to the DEEO, Kamrup, Amingaon for obtaining report from the BEEO, Chamaria regarding submission of the proposal to the concerned authority for releasing minority scholarship in respect of those students in the name of school hostel boarder though the school are not having

¶36

Page No.# 6/11

¶37

any hostel facility in connection with the suspension of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has already been reinstated in his original place of posting, vide order dated 07.09.2022, except the works related to financial matter till the completion of CID investigation, vide order dated 07.09.2022. It is also stated that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has already been initiated based upon the information received by the Director of Minorities Development Board, Assam and DEEO, Kamrup, Amingaon, along with draft charges and statement of allegations.

¶38

5. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply to the aforesaid affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No. 2, denying the statements and averments made therein.

¶39

6. The respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that there were allegations of anomalies and misappropriation in the DBT transfer of the pre-matric scholarship fund for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, fraudulently availed minority scholarship by showing names of the students as boarders of the M.E. Madrassa hostel, though the M.E.M has no hostel for students, and accordingly an FIR was lodged and registered as CID P.S. case No. 20/2020, under Sections 120B/406/409/419/420/468/471 IPC, and investigation was taken by CID, and that detailed status report was sought from for from the CID, but the same has not been received.

¶40

7. The respondent No. 7 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that in connection with the Charge-sheet No. 1/2021, dated 03.02.2021, investigation is being carried out and charge-sheet has been submitted against 32 numbers of arrested accused persons, and that investigation is open under Section 173(8) CrPC and as such, investigation is still going on.

¶41

Page No.# 7/11

¶42

7.1. It is also stated that during the course of investigation, one arrested accused, namely, Golam Mustafa of Palahartari, Nagarbera revealed that Abdul Kuddus was also involved in misappropriation of scholarship of other schools of Kamrup (R) district, and Palahartari Habibia M.E. Madrassa is one among them. It is also stated that during investigation, I.O. of the case visited the Palahartari Habibia M.E. Madrassa and also examined the petitioner and some students of Palahartari Habibia M.E. Madrassa and during investigation, it has been found that the school does not have any hostel facility since its establishment in the year 1985, and the petitioner had stated that in the financial year 2019-2020, 103 numbers of students had applied for scholarship, which he verified as an INO, wherein he admitted having wrongfully verifying the applicants as hostellers of Palahartari Habibia M.E. Madrassa. It is also stated that during investigation, it has come to light that the petitioner had illegally included the name of students as hostellers in connivance with one of the accused, namely, Golam Mustafa.

¶43

8. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply to the aforementioned affidavitin-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7, denying the statements and averments made in the said affidavit-in-opposition.

¶44

9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved for denying him to deal with the financial matters of the Madrassa till completion of the CID investigation. Referring to the charge-sheet in relation to CID P.S. Case No. 20/2020, dated 28.08.2020, Mr. Sarma submits that in the aforementioned charge-sheet, neither the name of the petitioner is included as accused nor as a witness, and that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, and though he was served with a copy of the show cause notice, yet after furnishing his reply, no departmental proceeding has been

¶45

Page No.# 8/11

¶46

initiated against him. Mr. Sarma also submits that without application of mind, the impugned condition has been imposed in the revocation of suspension order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-L of the petition), and without any departmental proceeding being initiated against him therein and without any charge-sheet filed against him, debarring him from dealing with the financial matters of the Madrassa is unjust and arbitrary, and in that view of the matter, the same warrants interference of this Court.

¶47

9.1. Further, Mr. Sarma by drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 14.02.2022 (Annexure-J), submits that the BEEO, Chamaria after conducting spot verification, had submitted a report to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on 14.02.2022, wherein it is stated that no record was found in his office regarding the complainant who made allegation against the petitioner, and the guardians of students of the Madrassa had submitted the applications of Minority Scholarship before the Headmaster for verification after online submission by themselves in computer centre, and that there was no computer in the office of the Headmaster, and that the Headmaster did not have sufficient knowledge of computer and hence, he had sent all the documents before the concerned authority for approval after verification. But, he could not ascertain the hosteller and non-hosteller students because the Madrassa did not have hostel facilities and the 35 students of the Madrassa got their Minority Scholarship as hosteller without knowledge of the Headmaster, and the Headmaster did not have any role in crediting the amount in the respective account of the students, and that the said information has been received from Abdul Kuddus, few teachers and one social worker as clarification, and during this period, 124 students had submitted their application for Minority Scholarship, out of which 97 students have received their scholarship and the

¶48

Page No.# 9/11

¶49

rest 27 students were outside the Madrassa due to which those names were struck off and the names of 97 students were recommended before the concerned authority.

¶50

10. Per contra, Mr. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that the investigation against the petitioner is still going on and he has already been reinstated, and only the financial power has not been given to him because of the pendency of the investigation, and as such, debarring him from dealing with the financial matters of the Madrassa is not arbitrary or illegal, and as such, Mr. Borah has contended to dismiss this petition.

¶51

11. Having carefully perused the certified copy of the charge-sheet produced before the Court today, in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 20/2020, under Sections 120B/406/409/419/420/468/471/109/201/34 IPC, read with Section 66C/66D of the IT Act, this Court finds that there is no reference of the petitioner in the said charge-sheet, either as a witness or as an accused. Though the respondent No. 7 in his affidavit-in-opposition has stated that investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, is still pending, yet no such reference is found in the charge-sheet dated 03.02.2021.

¶52

12. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding has been drawn up against the petitioner after submission of his show cause reply issued to him, vide letter dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-F), and it appears that the petitioner has submitted his reply on 03.11.2021, and the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 is silent as to the present status of the said departmental proceeding.

¶53

13. It is the categorical contention of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received any communication regarding the

¶54

Page No.# 10/11

¶55

said departmental proceeding.

¶56

14. Further, the letter dated 14.02.2022, issued by the BEEO, Chamaria, addressed to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, indicates that no record was found in his office regarding the complainant who made allegation against the petitioner, and the guardians of students of the Madrassa had submitted the applications of Minority Scholarship before the Headmaster for verification after online submission by themselves in computer centre, and that there was no computer in the office of the Headmaster, and that the Headmaster did not have sufficient knowledge of computer and hence, he had sent all the documents before the concerned authority for approval after verification. But, he could not ascertain the hosteller and non-hosteller students because the Madrassa did not have hostel facilities and the 35 students of the Madrassa got their Minority Scholarship as hosteller without knowledge of the Headmaster, and the Headmaster did not have any role in crediting the amount in the respective account of the students.

¶57

15. In that view of the matter, debarring the petitioner from dealing with the financial matters of the Madrassa, vide order dated 07.09.2022, this Court is of the view that the same is arbitrary and illegal and on such count, it warrants interference of this Court. Having not drawn up any departmental proceeding against the petitioner and without recording a finding of guilt to that effect, no punishment could be imposed upon the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice.

¶58

16. Under the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. In arriving at such a finding, this Court is weighed by the following factors:-

¶59

Page No.# 11/11

¶60

(i) The name of the petitioner finds no mention in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet dated 03.02.2021, in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 20/2020.

¶61

(ii) The report of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Chamaria, dated 14.02.2022, which has given almost clean sheet to the petitioner.

¶62

(iii) No disciplinary proceeding is drawn up against the petitioner till date.

¶63

17. Accordingly, the impugned condition debarring the petitioner from dealing with the financial matters of the Madrassa till completion of the CID investigation, vide order dated 07.09.2022, stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be allowed to deal with the financial matters of the Madrassa.

¶64

18. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 2 within a week from today.

¶65

19. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶66

JUDGE

¶67

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Kuddus v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kuddus v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kabita Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bipul Mech Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ranu Das @ Mrs. Ranumai Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Ramen Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Moumeeta Mohanta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ham Ak Rural Develpment Foundation Vs All India Council for Technical Education and 4 Ors.