K. Lakshmiton Singha vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department.

The petitioner Dr. K. Lakshmiton Singha is stated to have worked as Associate Professor in the Cachar College where she was also allowed to be

the In/Charge Principal through the appropriate order. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in connection with such

proceeding she was also placed under suspension while she was holding her post as In/Charge Principal. Subsequently, the order of suspension was

revoked and she was reinstated. There are certain issues as to what would happen to the period for which the petitioner was under suspension. Be

that as it may, the disciplinary proceeding culminated in the order dated 27.10.2017 by which a penalty of withholding two increments was imposed on

the petitioner.

We also take note of that for the purpose of the order of penalty, the disciplinary authority was the Director of Higher Education, Assam.

Being aggrieved by the order of imposing penalty an appeal under Rule 15 of Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 ( in short Rule of

1964) was preferred by the petitioner.

The said appeal was given a consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Department by his order dated

08.01.2020. In consideration of such appeal which was filed on 1.11.2017 the following order as extracted below was passed by the Additional

Secretary:-

“I have perused the appeal, filed on 01/11/2017, under Rule 15 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 by Dr. (Mrs.) K.

Lakshmiton Singha against the order dated 27/10/2017.

I have perused the Judgment and Order dated 20/06/2019 by the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.8223/2018.

I have perused the contempt notice issued by the Registrar, (Contempt), Gauhati High Court, in Contempt Case(C) No. 509/2019.

The Petitioenr, Dr. (Mrs) K. Kakshmiton Singha submitted her statement on 12/9/2019 which is at Annexure 1.

The Director of Higher Education, Assam has submitted a report on the matter of Dr. K.

Lakshmiton Singha vide No.G(B)/AC/25/2004/Pt./908 dated 3/10/2019 which is at Annexure 2.

Further, the Petitioner, Dr. K. Lakshmiton Singha, Associate Professor of Cachar College was heard on 12/9/2019 where she raised her grievance on

the re-instatement order dated 27/10/2017 for the punishment imposed on her by withholding of 2 (two) nos. of her Annual increments, with

cumulative effect.

As the suspension has been found justified by the Disciplinary Authoirty and the period spent on suspension was not treated as on duty, the

punishment imposed on her, by withholding 2 (two) nos. of Annual increments with cumulative effect, stands.

Government in Higher Education Department hereby disposes off the appeal filed by the petitioner.â€​

A reading of the 4th paragraph of the order shows that the petitioner who had preferred the appeal was required to submit a statement on

12.09.2019 which again appears to be beyond the requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964. The Additional Chief Secretary having exercised his

jurisdiction under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964 is hearing the matter as appellate authority meaning thereby he will go by the grounds taken in the

appeal and take a call on the grounds by going through the records of the disciplinary proceeding.

The 5th paragraph of the order shows that the Director of the Higher Education had submitted a report vide No. G(B)/AC/25/2004/Pt./908 dated

03.10.2019. The Additional Chief Secretary had considered the said report submitted by the Director of Higher Education.

The report of the Director of Higher Education is made available at page 175A of the writ petition. The Director in his report states as under:-

“The petitioner, Dr. K. Lakshmiton Singha, Associate Professor of Cachar College was heard on 12/09/2019 where she raised her grievance of

the re-instatement order dated 27-10-2017 for the punishment against her imposed on her by withholding of 2 (two) nos. of Annual increments of with

cumulative effect against her.

As the suspension has been found justified by the Disciplinary Authority and the period spent on suspension was not treated as on duty, her claim may

perhaps not be consideredâ€​

We do not understand the meaning and purport of the said report of the Director. However, the Director goes on to say that as the suspension has

been found to be justified by the disciplinary authority, therefore, the period spent on suspension was not treated to be on duty..

The Additional Chief Secretary again relies on the said report of the Director for arriving at the conclusion that as the suspension has been found

justified by the disciplinary authority, the period spent on suspension was not treated to be on duty. By arriving such conclusion, the appeal stood

dismissed.

It appears that the Additional Chief Secretary had misdirected himself in considering the appeal and had lost track of what he was required to do

while deciding an appeal under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964. Nothing has been decided in the appeal on the grounds taken by the petitioner against the

order of punishment.

For such non exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Chief Secretary as required under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964, the order dated 08.01.2020

is set aside. The appeal shall now be heard by the appropriate appellate authority in an appropriate manner as required under Rule 15 of the Rules of

1964. The requirement be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Further what is more disturbing is that the Additional Chief Secretary instead of deciding the appeal on its merit calls for a report from the Director

of Higher Education, who infact itself is the disciplinary authority who had pass the order of punishment. In other words the appellate authority is

relying on the views of original authority to decide an appeal, which again is against the fundamentals of hearing an appeal.

The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education department shall pass the reasoned order as to in what manner the period

of suspension is to be treated under the law.

It is expected that a one line view as taken by the Director that the suspension was found justified therefore, the period of suspension cannot be

treated on duty, be not passed once again. The Commissioner may pass any order on the basis of the requirement of law in the given subject.

Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.