Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 145 (GAU)

Dewan Abdul Bareque v. State of Assam

2000-04-06

H.K.SEMA

body2000
Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Goswami, learned Govt Advocate. Mr. M. Sarania appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. This petition was moved on 6.10.99 and while issuing a Notice of Motion returnable within a month, this Court declined to pass an interim order and observed that an attempt should be made to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. This Court further observed that the pendency of writ petition will not -be a bar for the authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the-service. However, today Mr. D. Goswami submits that he has not received any instruction from, the concerned authority. Considerihg the facts and circumstances that I will be reciting shortly, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a short order. 3. This case illustrates a classic example as to how the authorities are exercising public power in utter regard to the rule of law and constitutional mandate. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is unpleasant and Tecited briefly. Petitioner was appointed as founder Head Pandit in Oxiguri Binapani School with effect from 1.1.72 by an order dated 16th September'72. In the interregnum, the petitioner was sent for Board Based Teachers' Training Programe in 1988 in aid of the Assam State Educational Research and Training Council for the period from 26.7.88 to 4.8.88 and he came out successfully. By an order dated 3.7.93 the service of the petitioner as LP Teacher has also been confirmed with effect from 1.1.88 pursuant to letter No. ETD- 17/83/Part-76, dated 1.2.87 issued by the Secretary, Education, Govt of Assam. By the aforesaid order the petitioner along with 22 others had been confirmed in their respective services. The name of the petitioner appear in serial No.6 of the order. 4. Then came the impugned order dated 25th March 1999. The order is brief and quoted in extenso : “Govt of Assam::: Office of the Deputy Inspector of School, Bijni “ORDER Dewan Abdul Bareque (Ghost teacher) of Dakhin Makra LP of Borobazar Block, BAG area under Bijni Sub-Division, is hereby discharged from service with immediate effect. He should hand over all office records and relevant documents relating to school to the next Senior Assistant Teacher of the school. Sd/- A. Nath, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni.” 5. He should hand over all office records and relevant documents relating to school to the next Senior Assistant Teacher of the school. Sd/- A. Nath, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni.” 5. A quick look at the impugned order as quoted above would clearly show that no inquiry whatsoever has been held, no opportunity has been afforded yet after almost 27 years of meritorious service the petitioner has been sought to be discharged by a cryptic order. That is a naked invasion of the mandate of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is unthinkable that in a democratic country like ours governed by rule of law, the authority possessing public power would have abused the power in the manner it is sought to be done. It is trite that the public authority possessing power to use for public good and not to abuse them. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 25th March 99 is hereby quashed with costs which I quantified at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) to be paid by the 4th respondent Shri A. Nath, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni within a month from today. Respondent No, 3 is further directed to reinstate the petitioner into his post forthwith with all his back wages. Director, Elementary Education, BAG, Kokrajhar, Assam shall ensure that the costs is realised from the pay and allowances of the 4th respondent and pay to the petitioner. The Director shall send compliance before this Court after expiry of one month. With the aforesaid direction this petition is disposed of.