Amina Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER (PM POSHAN) LAKHIMPUR DIST-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SAMGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN AND STATE NODAL OFFICER PM POSHAN ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 5:THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER AND DMC CUM-ADNO PM POSHAN

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MOWBOICHA REVENUE CIRCLE DIST-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶14

8:RAFIQUE AHMED BORUAH ASSISTANT TEACHER TINTHENGIA HIGH MADRASSA C/O TINTHENGIA HIGH MADRASSA P.O.-DAULATPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78705

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR. S H ZAMAN,MR. M A I HUSSAIN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR R CHAKRAVORTY (R-8),R BASUMATARY(R-8),S RABHA(R-8),MR N AHMED (R-8),MR. S AHMED (R-8),MR R AKHTAR (R-8),GA, ASSAM,SC, SSA

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶18

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶19

Date : 11-02-2026

¶20

Heard Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 7, Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing counsel for the SSA/respondent No. 4 and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the School Education department.

¶21

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 07.12.2022 by which the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Nodal Officer under the PM Poshan for the district Lakhimpur had

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

required the petitioner, who was the Superintendent of the Tinthengia High Madrassa to bear the equal quantity of quality rice of 45 Qtls. at her own cost and distribute it to the students from December, 2022 in the presence of official deputed for implementation of the PM Poshan scheme.

¶24

3. The case as reflected in the writ petition is that the petitioner while taking in-charge of the Tinthengia High Madrassa had prayed for earned leave to go to Haj at Mecca Saudi Arabia w.e.f. 10.06.2022 to 31.07.2022. In view of the earned leave granted to the petitioner by the order dated 21.06.2022, by another order dated 11.07.2022 to the respondent No. 8 had been allowed charge of Superintendent during the absence of the petitioner. On return from Haj, the petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 06.08.2022 which relied upon on a news broadcast on 04.08.2022 in a particular news channel that approximately 95 bags of PM Poshan rice was found unused and damaged with full of insect in the school goodown premises. The petitioner was charged with the negligence in duty.

¶25

4. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 24.08.2022 whereby she has given some justification. However, the Mission Director, SSA who is the State Nodal Officer for PM Poshan, Assam requested the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the department of Secondary Education to cause an enquiry and take necessary action against the petitioner herein as per the rule deem fit.

¶26

5. The petitioner had filed a representation before the Secretary to the Government of Assam on 31.10.2022 with copies to the Mission Director and the Deputy Commissioner Lakhimpur. By the order dated 07.12.2022, the Deputy Commissioner and the District Nodal Officer, PM Poshan scheme, had requested the damaged rice of 45 Qtls. be disposed of. By another order on the same date, the petitioner was required to bear expense for equal quantity of quality rice 45 Qtls. at her own cost and distribute it to the students within 12.12.2022. This order is under challenged in this writ petition.

¶27

6. Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming without admitting that certain quantity of rice has suffered infestation and damage in the school premises, during the period from April, May, June & July, the petitioner was admittedly on leave during the month from June & July and therefore, no negligence could have been

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

imputed on her for the aforesaid period.

¶30

7. Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that simply because some amount of the damaged rice had been recovered from the school premises, the authorities would not be empowered to impose the penalty as sought to be imposed by the order dated 07.12.2022 without holding detailed enquiry and without allowing the petitioner to participate in the same.

¶31

8. Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner and the District Nodal Officer PM Poshan scheme, is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appointing authority of the petitioner and therefore, imposition of penalty by such authorities on the petitioner is wholly un-called for in law.

¶32

9. Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for the damage caused to the rice, if any, had to be determined by holding appropriate enquiry. If there are allegations sought to be leveled regarding negligence on the part of the petitioner or other misconduct on the part of the petitioner, she was required to be given notice by the appropriate disciplinary authority or the appointing authority and only after having come to the conclusion to the extent and involvement of negligence or misconduct causing the damaged to the rice, the order of penalty could have been imposed her.

¶33

10. Mr. A.R Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 bearing No. DMC/SSA/L/MDM/Complaint/Part-II/2017/20/701 therefore, requires the interference of this Court.

¶34

11. Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No. 3 & 7 submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is also the Nodal Officer for implementation of the PM Poshan scheme and therefore, when it was seen that there was actual damage caused to the rice stocked in the godown of the school, appropriate action as deemed fit was taken by the concerned Nodal Officer in the discharge of his official duties. Since the rice had suffered damage and had not been distributed among the students, it was deemed fit to direct the petitioner, who was responsible, as per the enquiry report conducted by the Circle Officer, to pay up for such damage caused and also to ensure that the children who are beneficiaries of the scheme should be able to avail the

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

benefits.

¶37

12. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing counsel for the SSA/respondent No.4 has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is also the District Nodal Officer and it was under the instruction of the Director of SSA, that enquiry had been caused into by the Nodal Officer and that the fault was found that the petitioner having damaged the rice by negligence if not by misconduct an appropriate orders had been passed by the Nodal Officer.

¶38

13. Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that though it is admitted that he was given charge of Superintendent for the period from June & July, as reflected in the office order in which, the rice available in the godown was already damaged and his client cannot be held responsible for the same.

¶39

14. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel appearing for the School Education, on a pointed out query by this Court, has submitted that the disciplinary authority and the appointing authority is the Director of Secondary Education. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the School Education has submitted that even if the order dated 07.12.2022 had been passed by the authority that did not wield powers of the disciplinary authority or appointing authority, the fact remains that a huge amount of rice was found to be damaged in a particular school which was required to be distributed among the students in accordance with PM Poshan scheme. Therefore, an enquiry would definitely be required to find out the person responsible for causing such loss and damage. He, however, candidly admitted that it is the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority which can cause relevant enquiry with the co-operation of the authorities of SSA and the District Authority concerned to find out the actual cause and extent of damage and whether to proceed against the person who is incharge over such rice.

¶40

15. This Court has considered the submissions made at the bar and the records of the case. Since it is now an admitted position that the appropriate authority for fixing the responsibility for alleged loss of rice lies with the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority, the order dated 07.12.2022 issued by the District Nodal Officer of the SSA for the PM Poshan scheme and Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent that requires the petitioner to bear equal quantity of rice of 45 Qtls. which had not

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

been distributed to the students within the particular frame of time.

¶43

16. This Court had noticed that by the initial order, notice were issued, the operation of the said order had been stayed.

¶44

17. It is further provided that the respondent No. 1 & 2 would be at liberty to cause an enquiry into the allegedly damage of rice which was reflected in the report submitted by the District Nodal Officer and the Circle Officer, if such complaints are so forwarded by the SSA to the respondent No. 1 & 2 for taking appropriate action. This Court notices that such a request already had been made by the communication dated 20.10.2022 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education with copies been forwarded to the Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur District Circle, North Lakhimpur for information and necessary action. It is found that there is nothing to show that the department of School Education had initiated any action on the aforesaid request of the Mission Director SSA when the matter involved damage caused to rice meant for the students under the PM Poshan scheme. The aforesaid respondent No. 1 & 2 shall exercise their discretion to proceed with the enquiry as requested by the Mission Director within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶45

18. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the School Education has assured the Court to supply the copy of this order at the earliest possible. The Mission Director of SSA may also pursue the matter with the respondent No. 1 & 2

¶46

19. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. No cost.

¶47

20. All the interim orders passed earlier shall merge with this order. The respondents shall remove the damaged rice from the school premises expeditiously to maintain health and hygiene in the school premises.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Amina Khatun v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amina Khatun v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samela Basumatary Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Miss Amnika Thaosen and 9 Ors. Vs Partha Joharti and 2 Ors.

Force No. 831241604 Sri Deba Jyoti Bora Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Lutfar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Hamidur Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mrs. Renu Deka Das Vs the Industrial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.