AMALENDRA KUMAR ROY Vs. DR. SOIBAM HARIDAS SINGH AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-129
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on January 10,2018

Amalendra Kumar Roy Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. Soibam Haridas Singh And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. P. Roy, learned senior counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the applicant in I.A. (Civil) 3344/2017 as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent in the Education (Secondary) department.
(2.) I.A. (Civil) No. 3115/2017 has been preferred by the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.5091/2017 for modification of the interim order dated 21.08.2017. On the other hand, I.A. (Civil) 3344/2017 has been preferred by the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5091/2017 for extension of the interim order dated 21.08.2017.
(3.) The writ petitioner was working as the Principal In-Charge of Govt. Girls HS and MP School, Silchar as per the order dated 12.02.2014. Prior to that, the respondent No.4 Amalendu Kr. Roy was the In-Charge Principal of the School, but due to certain allegation of financial irregularities, the respondent No. 4 was discontinued from being the In-Charge Principal and in his place, the petitioner was made the In-Charge Principal. In the aforesaid circumstance, the proceeding that was initiated against the respondent No. 4 was dropped, resulting in the order dated 29.05.2017 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. By the said order, it was provided that from the materials on record, it was concluded that the same were not sufficient for initiating a departmental proceeding against the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the initiation of the departmental proceeding against him had been dropped. Consequent thereupon, a further order dated 04.08.2017 was passed by the Director of Secondary Education by which, the petitioner who was made the In-Charge Principal of the School had been discontinued and in his place, the respondent No. 4 was allowed to be the In-Charge Principal of the school. The order of 04.08.2017 had been assailed by the writ petitioner primarily on the premises that it was incorrectly concluded by the respondent authorities not to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 4. Based on the aforesaid, the interim order 21.08.2017 was passed by which the order of the Director dated 04.08.2017 allowing the respondent No. 4 to be the In-Charge Principal was stayed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.