Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010230192025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5968/2025 SHEIKH SALAHUDDIN SHAIFULLAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HATSINGIMARI, PO HATSINGIMARI, PS SOUTH SALMARA, DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR HATSINGIMARI PO HATSINGIMARI DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783135 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR HATSINGIMARI PO HATSINGIMARI DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783135 Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.11.21 15:10:22 +05'30' Page No.# 2/9 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MANKACHAR HATSINGIMARI PO HATSINGIMARI DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783135 6:THE CLUSTER RESOURCE CO ORDINATOR OF BORAR ALGA CLUSTER CUM IC HEAD TEACHER CHAR SHISHUMARA LP SCHOOL NAMELY SHRI RUSEL AMIN SARKAR RO VILLAGE FULERCHAR PT III PO FULERCHAR DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.11.2025 Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, for the state respondents. 2. This writ proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is initiated by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- (i) To set aside and quash the order dated 16.09.2025, by which the respondent No.3 has allowed the respondent No.6 to act as In-Charge Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School; Page No.# 3/9 (ii) To set aside and quash the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the respondent No.3, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension; (iii) To issue direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service as Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School with all other allowances as admissible under the rule. 3. Mr. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School, under the Deputy Inspector of Schools, South Salmara Mankachar, in the district of South Salmara Mankachar. The respondent No.3, the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), South Salmara Mankachar, vide order dated 03.07.2025, has recommended and accorded approval for shifting of Char Shishumara L.P. School to the char area located to the south-east of the current site due to erosion. But in the said order, no direction was issued to the petitioner regarding shifting of the said school and moreover, the same was not communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 20.08.2025, has called the petitioner to his office for hearing on 27.08.2025, regarding shifting of the school and the petitioner was present on that day, but he was never heard. 3.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025, has cancelled all earlier orders and allowed the respondent No.6 to act as In- Charge Head Teacher of the said Char Shishumara L.P. School and further, directed the respondent No.6 to shift the school to the nearby safer place in coordination with the School Management Committee of the school. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 has shifted the school to the nearby place and the petitioner was attending the school. But, thereafter, again the respondent No.3, Page No.# 4/9 vide impugned order dated 20.09.2025, has suspended the petitioner from service without issuing any notice, show-cause and reasonable opportunity of being heard and without any authority of law and in total violation of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. 3.2. Mr. Khandakar, further submits that the respondent No.3 is not the competent authority to suspend the petitioner. Despite, he had issued the suspension order dated 20.09.2025, without obtaining approval from the competent authority and without even contemplating any disciplinary proceeding against him and thereby violated the provision of the Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rule of 1964. 3.3. Mr. Khandakar, further submits that while passing the said orders, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard and as such, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. 4. Per contra, Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that the District Elementary Education Officer, South Salmara Mankachar, had submitted a letter to the Directorate with a request to place Sheikh Salahuddin Shaifullah, Head Teacher, Char Shishumara L.P. School under suspension vide letter dated 08.09.2025, but no relevant documents were submitted with the letter based on which the incumbent could be suspended. Thereafter, the Directorate has sent a letter to the District Elementary Education Officer, vide letter dated 13.10.2025 asking following documents:- (i) Order copy of shifting the school, (ii) Reports, order copy etc. based on which the order for shifting was given, and Page No.# 5/9 (iii) Report of the hearing and copies of the statements of the hearing after the Head Teacher did not follow the order etc. 4.1. Mr. Phukan also submits that in the meanwhile, the teacher concerned has filed one case before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an order on 17.10.2025, from which the Directorate came to know that the teacher has already been suspended by the District Elementary Education Officer, South Salmara. 4.2. Mr. Phukan, further submits that though the petitioner had taken a stand that the copy of the order for shifting of the school had not been served upon him, yet, referring to paragraph No.6 of the affidavit of respondent No.2, Mr. Phukan submits that the respondent No.6, the CRCC of Borairalga Cluster, had collected the shifting order from the Block Elementary Education Officer, Mankachar and he himself handed over the same to the present petitioner on 03.07.2025, and that in the hearing conducted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, it has been reported that the petitioner explicitly denied to carry out the shifting order during the hearing itself. Mr. Phukan also submits that the matter of suspension is being reviewed in the Directorate at present and under the given facts and circumstance, Mr. Phukan submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and as such, no interference of this Court is warranted at this stage. 5. Having head the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 16.09.2025, by which the respondent No.3 has allowed the respondent No.6 to act as In-Charge Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School and also the order dated 20.09.2025, issued by the respondent No.3, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. Page No.# 6/9 6. The basic facts, here in this case are not in dispute. While the petitioner was serving as Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School, under the Deputy Inspector of Schools, South Salmara, the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025, has allowed the respondent No.6 to act as In-Charge Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School. But, it appears that while passing the said order, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the present petitioner and no notice of show-cause was also issued to him. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, for being passed in contravention to the principles of natural justice, cannot withstand the legal scrutiny and on such count, the same is liable to be interfered with. 7. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent authorities, however, submits that the petitioner had failed to carry out the order of shifting of the school, whereas shifting was required on account of erosion, and as such, the order dated 16.09.2025 and the order dated 20.09.2025 are justified, yet, the said submission left this Court unimpressed, in as much as there is no material to show that the order for shifting dated 03.07.2025, was ever communicated to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the said order dated 03.07.2025, passed by the respondent No.3 indicates that copy of the same was never marked to the petitioner, though a copy was marked to the Block Elementary Education Officer, Mankachar. 8. Further, from the order dated 03.07.2025, it appears that before the same being passed, the petitioner was never given an opportunity of being heard. However, a letter dated 11.07.2025, appears to have been marked to the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the same was served to the petitioner. 9. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under Page No.# 7/9 suspension vide order dated 20.09.2025, by the respondent No.3. But, indisputably, the respondent No.3 is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. The appointing authority of the petitioner, as submitted at the Bar, is the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and before placing the petitioner under suspension, the respondent No.3 has not obtained any approval or after passing the order, he had not brought it to the notice of the respondent No.2, the circumstances leading to suspension of the petitioner. 9.1. A cursory perusal of the paragraph No.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, reveals that the respondent No.3 has written a letter on 08.09.2025, to the Director to place the petitioner under suspension and thereafter, the Directorate has sent one letter on 13.10.2025, asking for (i) order copy of shifting the school, (ii) reports, order copy etc. based on which the order for shifting was given and (iii) report of the hearing and copies of the statements of the hearing, when the petitioner refused to follow the order. But, before the said documents were furnished, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 20.09.2025. From the said affidavit it also becomes clear till filing of the affidavit by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 had not furnished the documents as asked for vide letter dated 13.10.2025 and before the letter being sent by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 had placed the petitioner under suspension. 10. It is to be noted here that proviso to Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 provides that if the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, then the circumstances leading to suspension of the incumbent has to be brought to the notice of the appointing authority forthwith, by the authority placing the employee under suspension. The Rule read as under:- Page No.# 8/9 Rule - 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 in 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 of any criminal offence 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." 11. In the instant case, the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.2, reveals that the respondent No.3, before placing the petitioner under suspension had never reported the circumstances leading to the suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2025. Though he had sent one letter to the Director on 08.09.2025, to place the petitioner under suspension, yet he had not submitted relevant documents with the letter based on which the incumbent could be suspended. Thereafter, the Directorate has sent a letter to the District Elementary Education Officer, vide letter dated 13.10.2025 asking documents. Page No.# 9/9 But, he never responded to the same. But, before the said letter being sent, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent No.3. Thus, on the face of the record, more particularly, from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, contravention of the proviso to Rule 6(1) is writ large. 12. As the impugned suspension order, dated 20.09.2025 for being passed in contravention to the provision of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the same, to the concerned opinion of this Court, failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with. 13. In the result, this Court find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2025, by which the respondent No.3 has allowed the respondent No.6 to act as In- Charge Head Teacher of Char Shishumara L.P. School stands set aside and quashed. Further, the impugned suspension order dated 20.09.2025, also stands set aside and quashed for being passed in contravention to Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. 14. Consequently, by a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner to his original post, which he was holding as on 16.09.2025, forthwith, with all back wages. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant