TIKENDRAJIT BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5. None, however, appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order bearing Memo No. BEEO/BNC/2012/1193-97 dated 22.01.2014 passed by the respondent no.4 i.e. the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Biswanath Education Block, Biswanath Chariali, District - Sonitpur. By the said impugned order dated 22.01.2014, the BEEO had released the salary of the petitioner after having a wage cut for the day, 04.06.2013 due to unauthorised absence after giving a warning, acting pursuant to a letter under Memo No. BNC-2/2012/PT-1/71 dated 09.01.2014 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner holding the charge of Sub-Divisional Officer, Biswanath Chariali on the proposal made by the said BEEO.

(3.) The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order and institution of the writ petition are stated here under. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Mikir Block Prathamik Vidyalaya in the year 1986 when the school was at a venture stage. Consequent to provincialisation of the school on 19.11.1991, the service of the petitioner was also provincialised. Later on, the petitioner became Head Master of the school. On 04.06.2013, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O), Biswanath Chariali paid a visit to the school at about 12-30 p.m. and during his said visit, he did not find any teacher including the petitioner or any student in the school premises. The S.D.O. then instructed the BEEO, Biswanath to issue letters to the Head Master i.e. the petitioner and the other teachers to know as to why the school was not functioning at about 12-30 p.m. on 4.6.2013. On such instruction, the BEEO, Biswanath issued letters on 4.6.2013 to the petitioner and other Assistant Teachers of the school to show cause by 2-00 p.m. on 05.06.2013 about their absence in the school on 04.06.2013 and as to why departmental action should not be taken. Responding to the said letter of the BEEO, the petitioner submitted his reply on 5.6.2013 stating that on 4.6.2013 he attended the school in time and at 11-30 a.m., he had to leave for census enumeration job as he was appointed to act as an Enumerator for conducting the field work of the 6th Economic Census, 2012. The petitioner further stated that the duty to look after the school was entrusted to another Assistant Teacher as the third Assistant Teacher was also absent due to her D.Ed. examination. The petitioner stated that it was for the second Assistant Teacher to show cause as to why he closed the school on 04.06.2013 at about 12-30 p.m. Subsequent to submission of reply by the petitioner, the petitioner found that the S.D.O. instructed the Treasury Officer not to pass the salary bill of the petitioner. The petitioner cited that the S.D.O. concerned was holding a grievance against him in view of the petitioner's objection to a letter dated 14.11.2012 sent to him by the BEEO on the instruction of the S.D.O. By the said letter dated 14.11.2012, sent to all Head Masters/Assistant Teachers of Primary/Middle-English/Madrasa Schools, the BEEO wrote that "Biswanath Festival" would be held on 24.11.2012 and 25.11.2012 under the supervision of the S.D.O., Biswanath and to make the festival successful, all the teachers of the school were asked to contribute Rs. 100/- and to submit the collection to the BEEO on 22.11.2012. The BEEO in the said letter had mentioned that the instruction to collect the said amount of Rs. 100/- was on the oral advise of the S.D.O. and the matter was asked to be treated as very important. The petitioner had urged that as he raised his objection against such collection, the S.D.O. had taken the unauthorised action of stoppage of his salary maliciously when he got the opportunity. Having found his salary stopped from the month of July 2013, the petitioner submitted a representation before the BEEO requesting him to release the salary. When the authorities did not pay any heed to the representation so submitted by the petitioner and did not release the salary for over four months, the petitioner submitted an application under Right to Information Act (RTI) on 11.11.2013 seeking information as regards non-payment of his salary.