Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010172252024 2025:GAU-AS:14094 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4373/2024 HITESH PATHAK S/O- LATE SATYA NATH PATHAK, R/O- KALAYAHATI , WARD NO-14, P.O AND DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BLOCK-C (GROUND FLOOR), ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BARPETA DISTRICT CIRCLE BARPETA ASSAM 4:GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BARPETA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL P.O P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B GOGOI, MR. R BORPUJARI,MR M BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 23.10.2025 Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department appearing for the said department. Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a Speaking Order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure-E) has been passed transferring the petitioner from the office of the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta to the office of the Principal of Government H.S. School, Barpeta in his own grade and scale of pay and that the same is punitive in nature in view of the fact that certain allegations have been made against the petitioner, which prompted his transfer. Referring to the impugned order, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is alleged that some complaint has been received from the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta against the petitioner harassing his junior officer and taunting them. In this regard, some employees of the office stood as witnesses and appended their signatures on the complaint. However, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to represent or defend himself against such complaint, Page No.# 3/4 the impugned transfer order has been issued. Therefore, the same being in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the same should be set aside. 3. Mr. U. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was posted as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta and in view of his conduct in the said office as witnessed by all other employees of the office, the petitioner was transferred in his own grade of pay to the office of the Principal of the Government H.S School, Barpeta by way of an administrative order. He submits that the same cannot be considered to be punitive in nature in view of the fact that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to rectify his behaviour and to maintain administrative decorum, which he failed to do so. 4. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the materials available on record. 5. What can be seen from the impugned speaking order is that a complaint had been received by the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta vide letter dated 29.05.2024 against the writ petitioner making certain allegations against him. To support the complaint, signatures have been obtained from witnesses, who are also employees of the office. The respondents apart from saying that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to rectify his behaviour, have not demonstrated anywhere in the counter affidavit that an opportunity was given to the petitioner by issuance of a show cause notice on the complaint received by the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta. Opportunity granted to him to rectify Page No.# 4/4 his behaviour can by no means be a justification for non-issuance of a formal notice and giving opportunity to the person concerned to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against departmentally. Since it is seen from the materials available before the Court that there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the Speaking Order dated 05.07.2024. 6. It is ordered accordingly. 7. Notwithstanding the interference with the Speaking Order dated 05.07.2024, the respondent authorities, if so advised, are not barred to take appropriate steps on the complaint said to have been received about the petitioner, but the same should be resorted to only by strictly following the principles of natural justice as well as the relevant disciplinary Rules in this regard. It is also to be understood that the observation made herein above should not be construed as a mandatory direction to proceed against the petitioner. In other words, it is entirely left upon the respondent authorities to take their own decision. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant