Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010064172025 2025:GAU-AS:15486 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1740/2025 FARUQUE ABDULLAH SALEMUN HABIB S/O- LATE BOKTAR ALI, R/O- VILLAGE BONNYAGARI, P.O- JALESWAR, DIST- GOALPARA,ASSAM, PIN-783132 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTC KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL CHIRANG KAJALGAON ASSAM PIN-783385 Page No.# 2/6 6:NAZRUL ISLAM ASSTT. TEACHER IN NABAUDAY HIGH SCHOOL NANGALBHANGA CHIRANG PIN-78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K KALITA, MR. I H SAIKIA,MR. B BORAH,MR K KASHYAB Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. T ISLAM (R6),MR. K ALOM (R6),MD. A HUSSAIN (R6),SC. BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 117.11.2025 Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & standing counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5; and Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 17.03.2025, issued by the Inspector of Schools, Chirang District Circle, Kajalgaon; and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with immediate effect; and further to regularize the period under suspension w.e.f. 17.03.2025; and also to appoint the petitioner as In-charge Headmaster on retirement of the present incumbent till the post is filled up by a regular incumbent. 3. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Page No.# 3/6 was serving as Graduate teacher in Nabauday High School, Nangalbhanga, and while he was in service, he was placed under suspension, vide order dated 17.03.2025, in connection with Amguri P.S. Case No. 23/2023, though the petitioner was not arrested in the said case. Mr. Saikia also submits that the suspension order dated 17.03.2025, is under challenge in this petition, which was issued by the Inspector of Schools, who is not the appointing authority and in fact, the appointing authority is the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). Further, by referring to Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, Mr. Saikia submits that if an order of suspension is passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority; such authority has to forthwith report the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order of suspension is passed. But, in fact, the Inspector of Schools, CDC, Kajalgaon has not reported the circumstances leading to suspension of the petitioner to the Director of Education, BTC, which makes the impugned suspension order illegal, and on such count, Mr. Saikia has contended to set aside the same. Mr. Saikia further submits that since the date of suspension, the petitioner has not been given the subsistence allowance, and as such, the respondent authorities may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to regularize the suspension period and also to pay the subsistence allowance along with arrear pay forthwith. 4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 submits that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director of Education, BTC, but the impugned suspension order was passed by the Inspector of Schools, who in fact has no authority to suspend the petitioner, and despite, the said order has not been reported to the appointing authority. Ms. Bhuyan also submits that the impugned suspension Page No.# 4/6 order, on account of the abovementioned legal position, may not sustain. However, she submits that the same has been reviewed in time. She further submits that the petitioner used to send vulgar messages to the students and as such, liberty may be granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed against him in accordance with law. Ms. Bhuyan has also produced the relevant file as directed by this Court, vide order dated 04.11.2025. 5. The respondent No. 5/Inspector of Schools, CDC, Kajalgaon has filed his affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner was placed under suspension with approval from the Director of Education, BTC, in connection with Amguri P.S. Case No. 23/2023. But, no such approval is enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition to substantiate the contention made by him. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned suspension order dated 17.03.2025. 7. Section 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, deals with suspension, which reads as under: “6. Suspension- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension – (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where is the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or (c) Where a case against him in respect any criminal offence Page No.# 5/6 is under investigation inquiry or trial; Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.” 8. Indisputably, the impugned suspension order dated 17.03.2025, was passed by the Inspector of Schools, CDC, Kajalgaon, and indisputably he is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. The appointing authority is Director of Education, BTC, who had appointed the petitioner, vide order dated 29.09.2018. 9. Since the Inspector of Schools, CDC, Kajalgaon, without being the appointing authority and having placed the petitioner under suspension, has not reported to the appointing authority i.e. Director of Education, BTC the circumstances leading to the suspension of the petitioner forthwith, the impugned suspension order dated 17.03.2025, on such count, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. And as such, the same is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned suspension order dated 17.03.2025, stands set aside and quashed. 10. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay the subsistence allowance along with the arrear salary forthwith. 11. Though Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner used to send vulgar messages to the students of the school, but the said fact seems to be not born out of the record of the present writ proceeding, and on such count, this Court is not inclined to grant any such liberty to the respondents, else it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Page No.# 6/6 12. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant