Gauhati High Court
The State Of Asssam And Ors vs Bashab Das And Ors on 17 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010189492025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/287/2025
1: THE STATE OF ASSSAM AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019
3: THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
NALBARI P.O. AND DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781335
4: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
BARKHETRI P.O. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781126
5: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER TIHU BARAMA
EDUCATION BLOCK P.O. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781371
6: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER PACHIM NALBARI
EDUCATION BLOCK P.O. PACHIM NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM
VERSUS
1: BASHAB DAS AND ORS.
S/O LATE TARUN DAS,
RESIDENT OF VILL AND P.O- SURADI,
DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781340.
2:MISS JYOTSNA BEGUM
R/O VILL. BILLESWAR P.O. BELSOR
DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781304
3:SYEDA MONOWARA BEGUM
W/O ABDUL HAMID R/O VILL. SUDARKUCHI
P.O. BALLIKUCHI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781126
Page No.# 2/6
4:SANJIBUDDIN AHMED
S/O NURUDDIN AHMED
R/O VILL. RAJAKHAT BANEKUCHI
P.O. BANAKUCHI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781340
5:KHAGEN BARMAN
S/O DHANESWAR BARMAN
R/O VILL. MALIKUCHI (DIGHELI)
P.O. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781335
6:KARUN KANTA HALOI
S/O LATE PARSHU RAM HALOI
R/O VILL. KHUDRA MAKHIBAHA
P.O MAKHIBAHA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781374
7:ABDUL SATTAR
S/O LATE FUKKAN ALI
R/O VILL. AND P.O. JAGARA
DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781310
8:AKSHAY DAS
S/O SRI PRAFULLA DAS
R/O VILL. KAITHALKUCHI
P.O. KAITHALKUCHI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781370
9:LAKHSHEWAR BARMAN
S/O LATE CHANDRA KR. BARMAN
R/O VILL. KAITHALKUCHI P.O. KAITHALKUCHI
DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781370
10:MD. CHAIFUDDIN AHMED
S/O MD. CHANO ALI
R/O VILL. AND P.O. JAGARA
DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781310
11:MALAYA BHAGABATI
W/O SR JAMINI BHAGABATI
R/O VILL. KAITHALKUCHI P.O. KAITHALKUCHI
DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 78137
12:THE DIRECTOR OF STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND
TRAINING (SCERT) ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY 19
13:THE PRINCIPAL OF BASIC TRAINING CENTRE SONARI
P.O. SONARI DIST. SIVSAGAR ASSAM PIN 78569
Page No.# 3/6
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary)
Department.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Nath, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee,
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 11.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
17.09.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education
(Elementary) Department for the appellants and Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee for the respondent Nos.1 to 11.
By the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.8445/2022, the termination of service of
the respondents and stoppage of their salary has been set aside with liberty to
the appellants/State to, if so deemed necessary, make an enquiry with respect
to the genuineness of the Junior Basic Training undergone by the respondents
and then take any decision but only after strictly following the procedure
mandated under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules, 1964.
The respondents served as Stipendiary Teachers in 1999-2001. They
were sent for training for completing Junior Basic Training for them to continue
in service. The respondents completed the training and produced the release
orders as also Provisional Certificates of their having undergone the training, by
virtue of which their services were continued.
However, in the year 2007, their salaries were stopped and on enquiry,
it was found that the Department was of the view that perhaps their initial
appointment was irregular.
Page No.# 4/6
Under the orders of this Court, a further enquiry took place in which
the respondents were found to be genuinely appointed Teachers and so their
salaries were resumed.
Thereafter again, on a newspaper item that the respondents are
continuing in their service on the basis of fake Junior Basic Training Certificates,
their salaries were stopped.
An enquiry is said to have been made by the Director of State Council
of Educational Research & Training (SCERT), who reported that there is no
record available in the Institute at Sonari from where the respondents had
obtained the Junior Basic Training Certificates, to ascertain that the respondents
had undergone the training.
Precisely for this reason, the services of the respondents were
terminated vide order dated 04.03.2022.
The records revealed that this decision was taken behind the back of
the respondents and only on the basis of a finding by the Director of SCERT that
the records of Junior Basic Training with respect to the respondents were not
available in the Institute at Sonari.
During the course of argument, while assailing the judgment, Mr.
Khataniar, learned Advocate for the appellants/State tried to demonstrate that
almost all of the respondents had received their Provisional Certificates through
one memo number, which was strongly indicative of the fact that the Junior
Basic Training Certificates were fake. The other ground to consider the
Certificates to be not genuine was that despite the respondents being in service
and drawing their salaries for such a long time, no effort was made by them to
obtain regular Certificates of passing the Training and continued with their
appointments only by virtue of Provisional Certificates issued to them.
Page No.# 5/6
The learned Single Judge found that these materials were too bleak for
the appellants to have decided that the Provisional Certificates of passing of the
respondents of the Junior Basic Training were fake. It also appears from the
records that in the Sonari Centre, at the relevant point of time, there was a
dispute between 2(two) Senior Faculty Members over the issue of taking over
the charge as Principal of the Institute. There could be a possibility of the
records having been deliberately caused to disappear.
This may be in the realm of speculation but then for terminating the
services of the respondents, stronger materials were required for the employer
to allege that the Provisional Certificate of Junior Basic Training was fake.
Neither any forensic examination nor any proper investigation was conducted by
the authorities and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the
Certificates were alleged to be fake or not genuine.
If the record of the respondents' participation in the Training was not
available in the Centre, the respondents could not be blamed for the same. In
fact, all the respondents were sent by the Education Administration for training
and obtaining the Junior Basic Training certification.
Thus, without any verification or an appropriate investigation in that
regard, the services of the respondents were terminated.
This, in our estimation, is gross high-handedness.
The services of an employee cannot be treated so lightly. Precisely for
this reason, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination on the
afore-noted grounds, namely, that the decision was taken behind the back of
the respondents without affording them any opportunity of showing their cause
and on flimsy and inferential grounds: one being that there was no record of the
respondents having undergone the training in the Sonari Centre.
Page No.# 6/6
However, by the impugned judgment, the appellants, particularly, the
Director of Elementary Education, Assam, was given the liberty to proceed in
the matter against the respondents but only after their reinstatement in service
and release of their salaries, for a full-fledged enquiry, if so deemed necessary,
but strictly following the procedures as mandated under the provisions of the
Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964.
There could be no gainsaying that for termination of the services of an
employee, a full-fledged enquiry and a proceeding is required, giving every
opportunity to the employee to defend his/her case.
That not having been done, especially after the respondents have
served the respective Institutions for so many years, the order of termination
was highly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find any folly with the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
This appeal is meritless and, therefore, the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
