Abdul Jalil Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI P.O. HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151

¶11

Page No.# 2/6

¶12

6:ALI HAIDAR THE C.R.C.C. OF RANGAUTI-1 C/O BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151

¶13

7:MAKLISUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER S/O- LATE MAJORAF ALI MAZUMDER VILLAGE AND P.O. RANGAUTI PART-I P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, MR. S K DAS

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SR. GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 04.06.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. S.B. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for Elementary Education.

¶20

By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 19.08.2024 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by which it was concluded that the petitioner is found involved in a case of misappropriation of a fund and all the financial liabilities were directed to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he was working as the senior most

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

Assistant Teacher in Hinglairpar Lower Primary School, Hailakandi and while he was serving in the said capacity in the said school, he was also looking after the mid day meal provided to the students of the said school. As per the practice and procedure, he being the Head Teacher should pay for the mid day meal meant for the students from his own source, which is being paid later by the department on bills being released. The petitioner states that an amount of Rs. 40,147.54/- for the period from December, 2021 to June, 2022 was to be received by him from the mid day meal account of the school which he had spent. He also states that he was supposed to receive another amount of Rs. 9080.24/- from the School Managing Committee's Account for purchasing materials by the petitioner in connection with some festival. However, he submits that on charges of gross financial misappropriation and misuse of Government money as well as for insubordination to higher authority, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.07.2022. The petitioner had put to challenge the said suspension order by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 7922/2022 and this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 had set aside the said suspension order and in pursuance to the same, the petitioner was reinstated to his original post vide order dated 04.04.2023. However, a departmental proceeding was directed to be drawn against the petitioner by the Office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. In pursuance to the said order, the DEEO had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Director of Elementary Education on 06.05.2024. In the said report, it was stated that the petitioner has withdrawn Rs. 70,000/- for utilizing Multi Sectoral Development Programme fund from the School Managing Committee but he did not submit any progress report for the said utilization. It was also stated in the report that the petitioner has

¶24

Page No.# 4/6

¶25

withdrawn Rs. 23,000/- for mid day meal and misappropriated the fund. It is also reported that the petitioner went against the direction of the DEEO, Hailakandi by not handing over the charges to the Head Teacher to the next senior most Assistant Teacher. Further, the petitioner was also found involved in misappropriating money.

¶26

In view of the said facts and in pursuance to the enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam held that the allegations against the petitioner are proved. In the impugned order dated 19.08.2024, the Director of Elementary Education stated that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner will be concluded after recovering all the financial liabilities incurred on the petitioner due to misappropriation of fund.

¶27

It is this order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam which is put to challenge by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent authorities started the disciplinary proceedings by serving show cause notice dated 11.11.2024 to the petitioner to which the petitioner had submitted his reply on 14.11.2024. The Counsel further states that subsequently two numbers of notices were again issued to the petitioner on 18.03.2025 and 02.09.2025 for the purpose of hearing. The petitioner was asked to appear for hearing at Guwahati but since the notices were served upon him lately, he could not appear in the hearing. Further, it is stated that on behalf of the petitioner, the Principal of the said school had received the notice and he was intimidated about the same very late. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would participate in the departmental proceeding as and when he will be called for.

¶29

It is seen that the penalty of recovering the money from the petitioner was

¶30

Page No.# 5/6

¶31

decided upon on the enquiry report submitted by the DEEO, Hailakandi whereas in the order dated 19.08.2024, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam has asked the DEEO, Hailakandi to draw up the departmental proceeding against the petitioner by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer and submit findings of the departmental proceeding to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. However, it is seen that DEEO had submitted a report to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and on the basis of the report, the said penalty was already imposed upon the petitioner. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam had stipulated in the said order that the allegations against the petitioner was proved in pursuance to the enquiry report submitted by the DEEO. It was further stipulated that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner will be concluded after the money is recovered from the petitioner which is not according to the law as provided in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rule 1964 wherein Rule 9 provides for the entire procedure as to how to conduct the departmental proceeding against the delinquent employee. In the instant case, it has been in fact seen that the departmental proceeding had commenced and show cause notices were issued to the petitioner after the instant writ petition was file. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed his reply and the hearing is on.

¶32

In view of the same, it is therefore directed that the petitioner should appear during the departmental proceeding without any fail and the authorities concerned will have to take the departmental proceeding to its final outcome as per the law provided in the 1964, Rules. The respondent authorities would then imposed the punishment as required if any upon the petitioner on conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

¶33

In view of the same, order dated 19.08.20224 passed by the Director of

¶34

Page No.# 6/6

¶35

Elementary Education, Assam is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Jalil Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jalil Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Nikhil Gogoi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nekibuz Zaman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ramu Kumar Patar and 11 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashok Deka and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sushanta Kr Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.