Binay Kr Singha vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents.

The writ petitioner is the Headmaster of Jarailtola High School in the Cachar district who was taken into detention on 17.01.2021 by the Police

Personnel of Borkhola police station in connection with Borkhola P.S. Case No.12/2021 under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act,

2012.

As the petitioner was in detention for over 48 hour, the order dated 12.02.2021 was passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam

placing the petitioner under suspension in terms of Rule 6(2) of Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short Rules of 1964). The order

of suspension itself provides that the petitioner was released from custody on 29.01.2021.

The provisio to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 provides that when the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as

a government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the government or the government servant in the discharge of his duty or the

charge does not involve moral turpitude, the appointing authority may vacate the order of suspension made or deemed to have been made when he is

released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.

In this petition, the order dated 12.02.2021 placing the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 is being assailed. We are of

the view that the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner in the present petition.

From the order of suspension itself it is revealed that the petitioner has in the meantime been released on bail is otherwise not in custody or

imprisonment.

So from the point of view, the said condition precedent of the provisio to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 is satisfied in the case of the petitioner.

The proviso to Rule 6(2) is further provides that the appointing authority is required to arrived at a satisfaction that the charge against the delinquent

is not connected with his position as a government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the government or that the petitioner in

the discharge of his duty or the charge was not involved in any moral turpitude.

We require the Director of Secondary Education to take decision on his own and pass a reasoned order as to whether the charge against the

petitioner under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 amounted to an act of moral turpitude or not and whether such charge

against the petitioner was an embracement to the government in order to withdraw the order of suspension.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to take his decision on

the aforesaid two aspects and pass a reasoned order whether the charge against the petitioner under Section 345 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO

Act, 2012 is an act of moral turpitude and secondly whether withdrawing the order of suspension will cause embarrassment to the government.

Depending on the decision, the Director may pass a reasoned order. The requirement be done by the Director within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Writ petition stands disposed of.