Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010194562025 2026:GAU-AS:11786 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5148/2025 BALEN TALUKDAR SON OF- LATE PARAMANANDA TALUKDAR, R/O VILL. AND P.O.- CHAMATA, P.S.-BELSOR, DISTRICT- NALBARI, PIN-781306 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NALBARI DISTRICT CIRCLE NALBARI PIN-781335. 5:THE PRINCIPAL CHAMATA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL P.O- CHAMATA DISTRICT- NALBARI PIN-781306 Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MS. D BORA,MS D MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. H. Terongpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 20.03.2013, issued by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, imposing upon him the penalty of withholding of 01 (one) increment with cumulative effect, and also regularising the period of suspension as on duty for pensionary benefit only and directing that the petitioner, shall not be entitled to any salaries for the period of his suspension. 3. The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Laboratory Bearer at Chamata Higher Secondary School, Chamata, in the year 1995. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant, presently Junior Assistant, in the year 2000. The petitioner while serving as a Junior Assistant, at the said school, he was authorized by the Page No.# 3/10 Principal of the School, vide a communication dated 20.02.2012, to collect the HSLC Examination question papers from Belsar Police Station. The said examination was scheduled to be held w.e.f. 24.02.2012 to 21.03.2012. It is projected that in terms of the authorization as made in his favour by the Principal of the School, the petitioner used to collect the question papers of the examination being held on a particular date. On 03.03.2012, as scheduled, the examination was to be held for the Social Science subject and accordingly, the petitioner had gone to Belsar Police Station to collect the question papers of the said subject for the day as directed by the Principal of the school. The petitioner collected the sealed bundle of the said question papers and the petitioner, thereafter, came to the school and handed over the sealed bundle to the Officer-In-Charge of Examination/Officer-In-Charge (Confidential). The said question papers is projected to have been kept in the Office Almirah. Thereafter, when the bundle was opened and the question papers were being distributed, it was found that in lieu of the question papers for the Social Science subject, the police had handed over to the petitioner, the question papers for the General Science subject, which was so scheduled on a subsequent date. In view of the said anomaly taking place in the matter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide an order dated 03.03.2012. It is further projected that the petitioner was issued with a show- Page No.# 4/10 cause notice on 01.10.2012, and the petitioner had submitted his reply, thereto. Thereafter, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, vide the order dated 20.03.2013, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner the penalty as noticed, hereinabove. The petitioner, had thereafter, instituted an appeal before the Director of Secondary Education, Kahilipara, however the said appeal remains under consideration. The petitioner has further projected that subsequently, it having come to the notice of the authorities, that the petitioner was not in fault for the collection of the wrong bundle of the question papers and communications were made in this connection by the Principal of the School, to the Inspector of Schools. However, no further action being taken in the matter and the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner being continued with, the petitioner had instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has submitted that the petitioner being handed over a sealed bundle of the question papers, it was not permissible for him to discern as to the subject for which the question papers were included in the said sealed bundle. He submits that it is only after the opening of the sealed bundle by the competent authority during the process of the examination, it was detected that the question papers were not of Social Science subject, which was scheduled on the said date, but were of the General Science Page No.# 5/10 subject, which was scheduled on a subsequent date. 4.1. Mr. B. M. Deka, in support of his such submission has referred to a communication dated 22.09.2017, issued by the Principal, Chamata Higher Secondary School, to the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nalbari, wherein, the circumstances under which the mistake has so occasioned was set out and it was projected that the petitioner alone could not have been blamed for the said anomaly occasioned. It is further projected by Mr. Deka, that the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nalbari, had also vide a communication dated 01.12.2017, approached the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, seeking instruction as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner can be regularized or not. 4.2. Mr. B. M. Deka, by referring to the said communication dated 01.10.2012, which has now been projected as the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, submits that the same in no way satisfies the requirement of a show-cause notice issued under the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 4.3. Mr. B.M. Deka, further submits that a perusal of the impugned order dated 20.03.2013, would go to reveal that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of withholding of 01 (one) increment with cumulative Page No.# 6/10 effect, was so imposed by invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Mr. Deka, submits that a penalty under Rule 7, would be mandated to be so imposed only in the event, a proper Departmental proceedings is so instituted and conducted against the petitioner by following the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964. He submits that in absence of a proceeding being instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, it was not permissible for the Respondent authorities to invoke the provisions of Rule 7, for the purpose of imposing any penalty upon the petitioner, herein. 4.4. In the above premises Mr. B. M. Deka, submits that the impugned order dated 20.03.2013, would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Ms. H. Terongpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, submits that in absence of any instructions being furnished to her by the Departmental Authorities, she is not in a position to make any submissions in the matter. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner Page No.# 7/10 in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 20.03.2013. The said order being relevant, the same is extracted, hereinbelow; “ ORDER Sri Balen Talukdar, LDA, Chamata H.S. School was placed under suspension vide this office letter No. EST- 3/Suspen/01/12/4376-81 dt. 03-03-2012. Subsequently, Departmental proceeding was drawn against him. Whereas, the charge of gross duty negligence was brought against Sri Balen Talukdar, LDA, He submitted the Show-Cause reply on 03-10- 2012. Perused the reply of Sri Balen Talukdar and later I am in the opinion that the Govt. servant is guilty. The SEBA faced a loss of huge amount and he destroyed the image of the Education Department as a whole. Therefore, he will be punished and under rule 7 of the Assam Service (Discipline and appeal) rules 1934, I inflict the penalty of withholding 1 (one) increment with cumulative effect, w.e.f. his next due increment However, Balen Talukdar, LDA of Chamata H. S. School, Chamata is re-instead with immediate effect in his same post and institution. His suspension period will be treated as on duty only for pensionary benefit. The subsistence allowances already drawn will be the salary of the suspension period. Page No.# 8/10 Sd/-N.C.Boro, Inspector of Schools, N.D.C Naibari.” 8. A perusal of the said order dated 20.03.2013, would go to reveal that basing on the purported show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner on 03.10.2012, to the purported show-cause notice dated 01.10.2012, the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, had drawn a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty in the matter. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, a penalty of withholding of 01 (one) increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Further the manner in which his period of suspension is to be now regulated was also laid down. 9. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964, lays down the penalties permissible to be so imposed upon a Government servant. Rule 9 (1) of the said Rules of 1964, however mandates that no order imposing upon a Government servant, any of the penalties specified in Rule 7, shall be passed except after an enquiry held, in the manner, provided, therein. It is settled position of law that a Departmental proceeding under the provisions of the Rules of 1964, would stand instituted against a delinquent only on a show-cause notice being issued to the said delinquent under the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the said Rule of 1964. In the case on hand, a perusal of the communication dated 01.10.2012, Page No.# 9/10 would go to reveal that the same was in the form of an explanation call from the petitioner as to why a Departmental action, shall not be instituted against him. The said communication dated 01.10.2012, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be elevated to the status of a show- cause notice issued, invoking the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 1964. Further even if, it to be held that the communication dated 01.10.2012, had the effect of instituting a Departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner in his reply made there against having not admitted to the allegations levelled against him, without first carrying out an enquiry in the matter as provided under the provisions of Rule 9, it was not permissible for the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, to pass the order dated 20.03.2013, and that too imposing a penalty of withholding of 01 (one) increment with cumulative effect, which in the considered view of this Court, is in the form of a major penalty. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 20.03.2013, being so issued invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964, however, without following the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1964, in the considered view of this Court, the said order dated 20.03.2013, would not be sustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 20.03.2013, stands set aside. 11. The order dated 20.03.2013, having been set aside by this Court, the Respondent Authorities are directed to re-authorize to the petitioner, Page No.# 10/10 the increment withheld from him and thereafter, to compute the pay and allowances of the petitioner by reckoning the said increment and to release to the petitioner his arrears of pay so working out. The arrears of pay so working out, shall be released to the petitioner, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant