Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010225932017 2025:GAU-AS:4011 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8240/2017 MUSST. AMINA KHATUN W/O LATE ABDUL HAMID, R/O VILL- KADOMONI PATHER, PO- KADOMONI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS. TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NAGOAN DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BATADRAVA EDUCATION BLOCK PO-BATADRAVA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782122 5:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KADOMONI PATHER M.E. MADRASSA VILL-KADOMONI PATHER PO- KADOMONI PIN-782122 Page No.# 2/6 DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE HEAD MASTER KADOMONI PATHER M.E. MADRASSA VILL-KADOMONI PATHER PO- KADOMONI PIN-782122 DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRA R BHUYAN, MR.M A I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N SARMA (SC, EDUCATION DEPT.), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Z Hammad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Kadomoni ME Madrassa School was earlier terminated from service, against which WP(C)No.963/2013 was preferred. By the order dated 08.03.2017, this Court had set aside the order of termination on the ground that the required procedure under the Assam Non-Governmental Education Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Act”) was not followed. 3. By the said order, it was also provided that the petitioner shall be reinstated and her regular salary and allowances shall be paid and that upon the Page No.# 3/6 fulfilment of the said condition, it was left upon the School Management to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by following the statutory provisions. 4. The relevant paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 08.03.2017, passed in WP(C) 963/2013 states as follows:- “21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 963/2013 is hereby allowed. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are directed to forthwith reinstate the writ petitioner back in service and allow her to perform her duties as the second Assistant Teacher by paying her regular salary and allowances. Subject to the fulfilment of the above condition, it would be open to the School Management to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by following the statutory provisions as laid down in the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed there-under. The respondent no. 2 will pass appropriate orders in the matter, within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, facilitating of the order of this Court.” 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 08.03.2017, passed in WP(C) 963/2013, the respondent No. 6 filed an appeal, which was registered as WA No. 84/2017. 6. WA No. 84/2017 was dismissed, vide order dated 24.03.2017, by the Division Bench, by holding that it did not find any good ground to allow the appeal or to disturb the findings and the decision of the learned Single Bench. Page No.# 4/6 7. The writ petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition on the ground that show-cause notice dated 09.11.2017 has been issued to the petitioner, without reinstating the petitioner into service and without allowing her to join her post. Further, she has not been paid her regular salary and allowances. 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as there was a violation of the order dated 08.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 963/2013, the petitioner has also filed a contempt case, being Cont.Cas(C) 218/2017. 9. The petitioner’s prayer in this writ petition is to set aside the show-cause notice dated 09.11.2017, issued by the respondent No. 6, as the same is to be subject to the petitioner being allowed to perform her duties as a 2nd Assistant Teacher and being paid her regular salary and allowances. 10. Mr. Z Hammad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that though the petitioner has been given order dated 01.07.2017, reinstating her into service w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in compliance with the order dated 08.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 963/2013, the petitioner has not re-joined her post. As the petitioner had not re-joined her post, there was no question of paying salary and allowances to the petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 09.11.2017 has been issued to the petitioner, thereby initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by following the statutory provisions laid down in the 2006 Act and the connected Rules. 11. Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Elementary Education Department submits that the petitioner’s service has been terminated Page No.# 5/6 by the School Management Committee (SMC) during the period when the Kadomoni ME Madrassa School was a venture School. As such, the State respondents do not have any role to play in respect of the directions passed by this Court in the order dated 08.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 963/2013. As such, the onus of payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner is on the respondent No. 6 and not the State Government. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 13. The sole issue that has to be decided in the writ petition, is as to whether a disciplinary proceeding could have been initiated by the respondent No. 6 against the petitioner. Paragraph 21 of the said order dated 08.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 963/2013 makes it abundantly clear that the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner could only be done, after the petitioner was reinstated back into service, allowing her to perform her duties as a 2nd Assistant Teacher and after paying her regular salary and allowances. In the present case, as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not been paid her regular salary and allowances, the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding by way of a show-cause notice dated 09.11.2017, is not sustainable. The pre-condition for initiating a disciplinary proceeding has not been complied with. 14. In that view of the matter, the impugned show-cause notice dated 09.11.2017 issued by the respondent No. 6 to the petitioner, being in violation of the order dated 08.03.2017, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 6 should ensure that the petitioner is allowed to work as a 2nd Assistant Teacher and pay her the pay and allowances, as has been directed, vide order dated 08.03.2017, passed in WP(C) 963/2013. Page No.# 6/6 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant