Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010092722023 2025:GAU-AS:12726 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2433/2023 RAHIMA KHATUN W/O- AMINUL ISLAM MOLLAH, VILL- MEDARTARY, P.S.- FAKIRGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE RURAL LIVELIHOOD MISSION NABAJYOTI NAGAR GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER DMMU ASRLM DHUBRI ASSAM. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JAMADARHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DHUBRI ASSAM. 5:BLOCK PROJECT MANAGER JAMADARHAT BMMU ASRLM Page No.# 2/4 DHUBRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P RAHMAN, MS A HUSSAIN,MR. J AHMED,MR B ISLAM,MR Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 16-09-2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. 2. The prayer made in this writ petition is for setting aside and quashing of the suspension of the petitioner and also praying for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioner to work in her post as Jeevika Sakhi under Jamadarhat Development Block, cum Block Mission Management Unit, Dhubri. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 14.09.2020, levelling certain allegations upon her, and by an order dated 09.10.2020, issued by the Block Development Officer, Jamadarhat Development Block, she was directed to return certain amount of allegedly defalcated money, which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was returned. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show cause notice on 18.12.2020 requiring her to show cause as to why she should not be discharged from ASRLM activities. She was given a time of 3 (three) days to submit her explanation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a delay in submitting a reply for reasons explained in the reply itself. However, Page No.# 3/4 thereafter, she has not been intimated the fate of the disciplinary proceeding. 4. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 14.11.2023, a stand has been taken that the service of the petitioner had been terminated pursuant to the order dated 04.01.2021. The order dated 04.01.2021 issued by the State Mission Director, Assam State Rural Livelihood Mission had directed the Block Project Manager of the Jamadarhat BMMU, ASRLM to remove the petitioner from service after recovery of the misappropriated CIF amount within the given time. 5. It is noticed that when the writ petition was filed there was no formal order of suspension in operation against the petitioner. 6. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner had already been reinstated prior to the filing of the writ petition. 7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted before this Court that in view of the prayers made in the petition and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no order of suspension operating on the said date, this writ petition does not require any further consideration and may be closed. 8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been unceremoniously dislodged from her service pursuant to the order dated 04.01.2021, and submits that the said order had never been served upon her and the petitioner has remained in the dark about the said order, and therefore, no challenge could be made to the said order. Mr. Ahmed, Page No.# 4/4 learned counsel further submits that no formal order removing the petitioner from service had been served upon her. 9. Be that as it may, since the prayer in the writ petition was only with regard to the reinstatement of the service be revoking the suspension, it is submitted at the bar that there is no suspension order as on date operating against the petitioner, this writ petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge her termination from service as asserted in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. 10.The writ petition stands closed with liberty as granted above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant