BAKULI DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question requiring adjudication in this writ application pertains to the legitimacy of the second order of suspension dated 21.6.95, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, suspending the petitioner, Smti Bakuli Deka, which is impugned in this application under Article 216 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner, Smti Bakuli Deka, is a School Teacher, working in Kharagaon Junior Elasic School, Kharagaon in the North Salmara Sub-Division. That by an order dated 6.10.93, passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, "pending drawal of departmental proceeding", petitioner Smti Bakuli Deka, was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The petitioner assailed the above order dated 6th October, 1993 before this High Court by way of a writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 1550/94. This Court by its order dated 8.11.94, quashed the order of suspension dated 6.10.93 and directed the respondents to take back the petitioner in service with all service benefits from that date. The authority was left with his discretion to proceed with the inquiry by initiating Departmental proceeding. The Court further ordered that "the petitioner shall not be placed under suspension again" (emphasis supplied). The order of the Court was seemingly honoured by the respondents, as would appear from the order dated 15.3.95, passed by the Director of Elementary Education, which reads as follows:

(3.) Mr B.P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of suspension dated 21st June, 1995 as arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful. Mr Kataki has further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the respondents with oblique motive only to avoid the direction of this Court rendered in the judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No. 1550/94, which was apparently shown to be complied with by way of passing of the order dated 15.3.95 by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. According to Mr Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of suspension was not only illegal and arbitrary, but also suffers from non-application of mind. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned order was passed only with the motive to favour someone by creating a vacancy.