Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010061992026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/89/2026 SMTI SWARNALI PATHAK SWARNALI PATHAK, D/O LT. BIJAYA BORA PATHAK, R/O VILL. HAIBORGAON, LAWKHOWA ROAD, P.O. HAIBORGAON, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 78334 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AD SECY., DEPTT.OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NAGAON ASSAM. 4:CHANDAN BHATTACHARYA TUTOR DAKHAN JAR BAGAN L.P. SCHOOL P.O. BARPANI P.S. KACHUA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 78245 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Gogoi, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education Department. Page No.# 2/3 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The appellant was removed from the position of In-charge Head Teacher of Dakhin Jarbagan L.P. School as she was prima facie held responsible along with the Cook and Helpers in serving contaminated food under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, leading to 73 students suffering from food poisoning. The appellant was suspended immediately and a minor penalty was imposed upon her. Along with that she was removed from the charge of Head Teacher. This decision of the respondents was questioned by the appellant before the learned Single Judge vide WP(C) No.5963/2024 on the sole ground that even a minor punishment like stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and removing her from the position of In-charge Head Teacher could not have been passed without the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1964”). The learned Single Judge set aside the decision of the Page No.# 3/3 authorities and also ratified the revocation of the suspension of the appellant simultaneously. However, liberty was granted to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against her, if so desired, by instituting a regular departmental proceeding against her but only after following the provisions of the Rules of 1964. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that till such time that the proceedings would be initiated and concluded, it would not be obligatory for the respondents to give the charge of Head Teacher to the appellant, which decision ought to turn on the outcome of the departmental proceeding, if initiated. Today, Mr. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has informed this Court that the disciplinary proceeding has already been initiated against the respondent. He has further submitted that in all its probability, the disciplinary proceeding shall be concluded within a period of two months. The Department shall review after the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding whether to restore the appellant to the position of In-charge Head Teacher as the person who has been made In-charge is a Tutor, who is not authorized to run the school. With the afore-noted observation, we close this writ appeal. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant