Gauhati High Court
Dr Bhupesh Malla Buzar Baruah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 19 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/22
GAHC010277092025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7161/2025
DR BHUPESH MALLA BUZAR BARUAH
SON OF LATE H.M. BUZARBARUAH, A RESIDENT OF KAMAKHYA
COLONY PANDU, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), PIN- 781012
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE DIRECTOR
HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SARMA, K M KALITA,Y A SARKAR,MR. S K DEKA,MR.
J DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HIGHER EDU
Page No.# 2/22
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 19.12.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Higher Education Department.
2. Extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by the petitioner, who has been serving as Principal of BRM Government Law College, Guwahati to quash and set aside order, issued by the Director Higher Education, (respondent No. 4) Assam, issued vide Memo No. DHE/PA/Misc/01/2025/250, dated 09.12.2025. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 09.12.2025, the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect, until further order.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under. That, the petitioner is serving as the Principal in B.R.M Govt. Law College. After issuance of the programme for 3 years LL.B. Examination, 2025; and 5 years B.A. LL.B. Examination, 2025 on 17.11.25, by the Controller of Examinations, Guwahati University, the petitioner vide Notice, dated 13.11.25, had asked the faculty members of the college to supervise and look after the examination form fill up process. Accordingly, on 17.11.25, the faculty members, after verification, had submitted the list of students with their Roll Numbers, who are eligible to fill up the examination form. On the basis of the said lists of eligible students, the petitioner had published the Roll Nos. of students of respective course and semester in the Notice Board on 17.11.25 and Page No.# 3/22 18.11.25.
4. After the list being published, tremendous pressure was exerted upon the petitioner from the students, students association, and higher authorities to allow the students having more than 35% of attendance, which the petitioner had refused. Thereafter, on the applications, submitted by some of the students, the Controller of Examinations, Gauhati University has allowed two students to fill up their examination forms with certain conditions.
5. Some of the students and student association have also filed representation for allowing the students below the benchmark percentage of attendance to appear in the examination. And some of them had also approached this Court, by filing W.P. (C) No. 6944/2025 and W. P. (C) No. 6945/2025, to allow them to appear in the examination. Then, this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025, had disposed of W. P. (C) No. 6944/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 6945/2025, directing the petitioner herein to dispose of the representation dated 19.11.25, filed by the Students' Union, B.R.M. Govt. Law College, by passing a reasoned order, keeping in mind the requirement of Rule 12 and also the first Proviso to the said Rule, of the Rules of 2021. Accordingly, in compliance with the said Order dated 05.12.2025, the petitioner herein, had disposed of the said representation, dated 19.11.25, vide Order No. BRMGLC/Gen/2025/1091A, dated 06.12.25.
6. Thereafter, the Director of Higher Education, respondent No. 4, having not been he appointing authority of the petitioner, and without assigning any valid and cogent reason, has placed the petitioner under suspension, vide impugned Order, dated 09.12.25, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, mala-fide, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unfair, and high-handed action of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 4, who not being Page No.# 4/22 the appointing authority, had issued the impugned suspension order, vide Memo No. DHE/PA/Misc/01/2025/250, dated 09.12.25, purportedly, under Rule 6 (1)
(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, without there being involvement of any public interest, and without sufficient justification or care.
7. It is to be noted here that while matter was listed for motion on 11.12.2025, this Court, vide order dated 11.12.2025, had directed the learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, namely, Mr. S. Das to obtain instruction as to whether the Director of Higher Education, Guwahati, Assam, has been conferred the power of appointing authority in terms of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 irrespective of the powers conferred under the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025. Then on 12.12.2025, Mr. Das had apprised this Court that no such power is required to be conferred in view of Rule 31 of the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025, which was notified on 28.05.2025.
7.1. However, Mr. Das has produced one report of the Enquiry Committee, dated 09.12.2025, before this Court and perusal of the said report indicates that two students with attendance below 50% are allowed to appear in the examination, which is in direct violation of Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rule of Legal Education (Part-IV). But, when asked Mr. Das to apprise this Court as to who were the aforementioned two students, Mr. Das could not give any answer to the same and submits that unless the registers are verified, the same cannot be ascertained at this stage, as all the registers and relevant documents are under the lock and key, which is in possession of the present petitioner and therefore, he submits that an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to seize the same and to produce the same before this Court.
Page No.# 5/22 7.2. It is also the contention of Mr. Das that here in this case, alternative and efficacious remedy is provided in the Rules and the petitioner, without exhausting the said remedy, cannot directly approach this Court. In support of his submission, Mr. Das has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharastra and Others vs. Greatship (India) Limited, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 332. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to dismiss the petition.
8. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, referring to paragraph No.16 of the petition submits that two students, namely, Ankita Goswami and Jaber Rahmat Ullah were allowed to appear in the examination as recommended by the Controller of Examinations in the application filed by them before him. But subsequently, the said recommendation was withdrawn, vide letter dated 09.12.2025. And after withdrawal of the recommendation by the Controller of Examinations, said two students were also not allowed to take the test and not a single student of Government Law College was allowed to take the test, in contravention of the Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
8.1. Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension only on the ground that he complied with the order dated 05.12.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.6944/2025 and he was pressurized by the respondent authorities to allow some of the candidates, who were the petitioners in WP(C) No.6944/2025 and the petitioner did not succumb to the same, for which he has been placed under suspension arbitrarily and illegally and in violation of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
8.2. Mr. Sarma has also questioned the competence of Director of Higher Education in suspending the petitioner, as in case of the petitioner, the Director Page No.# 6/22 of the Higher Education is not the appointing authority, rather drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-1, the appointment letter of the petitioner, he submits that Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department was the appointing authority of the petitioner. He also submits that since the Director of Higher Education is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, to suspend the petitioner, he ought to have been authorized by the Governor of Assam in view of the Rule 6(1) of the Assam (Services and Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. And despite asking by the Court, the learned standing counsel had failed to produce the authorization before this Court and as such, the impugned suspension order is non est in the eye of law and is arbitrary and illegal and under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma has contended to interfere with the impugned suspension order.
9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also perused the impugned order dated 09.12.2025. Also this Court has gone through the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025.
10. The basic facts herein this petition, are not in dispute. Pending drawal of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide impugned order dated 09.12.2025. The impugned suspension order is read as under:-
"O R D E R In pursuance of the complaints received from students of B.R.M. Government Law College and the subsequent visit of the Hon'ble Minister of Education, Government of Assam, 08/11/2005 to Page No.# 7/22 assess the situation, the Hon'ble Minister directed that a team of officers from the Directorate of Higher Education be deputed to enquire to the matter and furnish enquiry report immediately for the greater interest of the student community of B.R.M. Government Law College Whereas, on 09/12/2025, the Enquiry Team submitted its report. After careful examination of the enquiry report and all relevant documents, it has been found that the Principal, B.R.M. Government Lave College, allowed students to appear in the LL.B. semester examination despite their attendance being less than 70% and, in some cases, where attendance was 50% or below, in gross violation of Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India (Part IV - Rules of Legal Education). Whereas, on the other hand he allowed a certain number of students to appear in the examination despite their attendance being less than the stipulated norms.
Rule 12 clearly stipulates: "12. End Semester Test -No student of any of the degree programmes shall be allowed to take the end-semester lest in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together. Provided that, if a student for any exceptional reasons fails to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take Page No.# 8/22 the test if the student concerned has attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of the classes in all subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice-Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorised representative, in the absence of the Dean of Law.
Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of India."
Whereas, being the head of the only Government Law College in the State of Assam, the Principal was expected to ensure strict compliance with all regulatory provisions. The enquiry has established that the irregularities occurred under his administrative authority, for which he is fully responsible. Accordingly, there is a need to initiate Departmental Proceedings on this matter. Whereas, as per Notification No e-file No 168838/355, dated 25.05.2025 the Director of Higher Education, Assam is the appointing authority and is entrusted with residual powers of the appointing authority under Clause 31.
The suspension is necessary to ensure an impartial and unhindered departmental enquiry, as the presence of the Principal in office may influence witnesses or tamper with records relevant to the case. Given the seriousness of the violation and the administrative responsibility vested in the Principal, suspension is essential to maintain the integrity of the enquiry process.
Now, therefore, in view of the above circumstances, pending drawal of departmental Page No.# 9/22 proceedings, and in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, Dr. Bhupesh Malla Buzarbaruah, Principal, B.R.M. Government Law College, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect, until further orders.
During his suspension period the senior most teacher will officiate as I/C Principal with DDO powers until further order.
Moreover, during the period of suspension, Dr. Bhupesh Malla Buzarbaruah shall be entitled to receive subsistence allowance @ 50% of his salary for the first three months and @ 75% thereafter, as per rules in force.
Further, he shall not leave headquarters without prior approval of the competent authority.
Sd./ Director of Higher Education, Assam.
Kahilipara, Guwahati-19"
11. It is also not in dispute that before placing the petitioner under suspension, a team of officers of Higher Education Department had conducted an enquiry as per direction of the Minister of Education, Assam and the said team of officers after conducting enquiry, submitted the report recommending to place the petitioner on suspension in the interest of impartial enquiry.
12. Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner had produced the said enquiry report before this Court and perusal of the same reveals that the committee had recorded its finding as under:-
"1. Two students with attendance below 50% were allowed to appear in the examination, which is in direct violation of Rule 12 of the Bar Page No.# 10/22 Council of India Rules of Legal Education (Part IV).
2. The Principal failed to apply BCI regulations uniformly, thereby raising serious concerns of bias and lack of transparency.
3. The Principal's claim that the decision was collectively taken with faculty members is contradicted by the faculty, who denied agreeing to the selective permission granted.
4. The Principal did not cooperate effectively during the enquiry and failed to uphold the dignity, integrity, and administrative responsibility expected of the Head of the only Government Law College in the State.
The enquiry clearly indicates that the Principal violated statutory norms of the Bar Council of India by permitting ineligible students to appear in the examination. He exhibited administrative negligence, lack of transparency, and failure to maintain institutional integrity. There is reasonable ground to believe that his actions may have compromised fairness and may potentially hamper the institution's academic credibility.
In view of the above findings. A fair, transparent, and detailed departmental enquiry be initiated against the Principal regarding all allegations levelled against him. Action may be taken under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.To ensure that no evidence is tampered with and the enquiry remains impartial, it is recommended that the Principal be temporarily withheld/suspended from his post during the course of the enquiry."
Page No.# 11/22 12.1. It also appears that the committee had visited BRM Government Law College on 08/12/2025 and conducted the enquiry by interacting with the Principal, faculty members, and the concerned students and also examined the relevant documents.
13. Thus, the enquiry report, so produced before this Court, by Mr. Das, reveals that the enquiry committee had found that two students with attendance below 50% were allowed to appear in the examination. But, Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that those two students were allowed to appear in the examination on the recommendation made by the Controller of Examinations, Gauhati University, made in the individual applications, filed by said two students on 04.12.2025 and 05.12.2025. He also submits that the said recommendations were subsequently withdrawn by the Controller of the Examination, vide his letter dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure-14). Further, Mr. Sharma submits that thereafter no one even the said two students were also not allowed to appear in the examination.
13.1. Further perusal of the impugned suspension order reveals that the only ground for suspension of the petitioner is allowing two students, as indicated in the enquiry report dated 09.12.2025, to appear in the examination despite their attendance less than 50%. Since after the letter of the Controller of the Examination withdrawing the recommendation dated 04.12.2025 and 05.12.2025, vide Annexure-14, said two students were also not allowed to appear in the examination, the primary ground for suspension of the petitioner has spent its force.
14. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department was the appointing Page No.# 12/22 authority of the petitioner in view of Annexure-1. The Director of Higher Education is admittedly not the appointing authority.
14.1. Further it appears that here in this case, the applicable Rule is the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025. Rule 19 of the said Rule provides that all employees of the Assam Government Colleges shall be governed under the provisions of "Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964, Assam Civil Services Conduct Rules 1965" and guidelines made there-under.
14.2. Rule 6(1) of the Assam (Services and Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority, which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension, (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where in the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:
Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.
14.3. Since the petitioner was placed under suspension by an authority, i.e. Director of Higher Education, who is admittedly not the appointing authority of the petitioner and since his appointing authority was the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department, as per Annexure-1, in view of Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 there is a requirement of empowering him i.e. the Director of Higher Education, by the Governor to place the petitioner under suspension.
Page No.# 13/22 14.4. Though Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent was asked to produce any document to show empowering the Director of Higher Education, by the Governor, to place the petitioner under suspension, he had failed to produce the same. However, Mr. Das, submits that no such power is required to be conferred in view of Rule 31 of the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025, which was notified on 28.05.2025. It is also stated in the impugned suspension order that as per Notification No. e-file No 168838/355, dated 25.05.2025, the Director of Higher Education, Assam is the appointing authority and is entrusted with residual powers of the appointing authority under Clause 31.
14.5. A perusal of the Rule 31 of the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025, provides that the Director shall exercise all other powers of the Appointing Authority as per Government notification/order issued from time to time. Further, Rule 32 of the said Rules provides that -"The Assam Government College Service Rules, 2022, are hereby repealed: Provided that all orders made or action taken under the rules so repealed or under any general order ancillary thereto, shall be deemed to have been validly made or taken under the corresponding provision of these rules".
14.6. Thus, there appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Das, as the subsequent Rule i.e. the Assam Government College Service Rules, 2025 has been made by the Governor of Assam in exercising the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Rule 31 of the said Rules vested the power of appointing authority upon the Director of Higher Education. Thus, the requirement of Rules 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, appears to be satisfied with. Therefore, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for Page No.# 14/22 the petitioner, in this regard.
15. However, it appears that while placing the petitioner under suspension, the Director of Higher Education had been influenced by the recommendation of the enquiry committee, which was constituted as per direction of Minister of Education, Government of Assam. From the chronology of events, that have been projected in this petition, this Court afraid the Director, while placing the petitioner under suspension had not independently applied his mind to the facts existed at the relevant point of time especially, the factum of withdrawal of recommendation by the Controller of Examinations, Gauhati University and consequently, debarring the two candidates, recommend by the Controller, from appearing in the examination by the petitioner herein. Thus, the sheet anchor of suspension order appears to be not the decision of the Director, but of some else.
15.1. It is also well settled in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Nagayach, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 25, statutory authorities must act independently without external pressure and should be always above suspicion. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein below:-
"Statutory functionaries like the Registrar/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society functioning under the respective co-operative Act must be above suspicion and function independently without external pressure. Where an authority invested with the power purport to act on its own but in substance the power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it would amount to non- exercise of power, statutorily vested."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page No.# 15/22
16. In the given factual scenario, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate remedy, though available to the petitioner, under the relevant Rules, as pointed out by Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, cannot be treated as an efficacious and meaningful remedy. Therefore, availability of the alternative remedy would not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite that if the impugned order of suspension is arbitrary which hits Article 14 of the Constitution, this itself can be a reason to interfere with it by the Court without relegating the employee to avail the remedy of appeal.
16.1. This Court has gone through the decision of Greatship (India) Limited (supra), referred by Mr. Das in this regard. But, this Court is of the view that in the given factual scenario, the same would not advance his argument. It is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 that:
"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any Page No.# 16/22 of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
(See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."
16.2. In view of the above, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities.
17. It is well settled that only in rare and extra-ordinary situation the High Court can interfere with the suspension order by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mahanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down parameters of suspension and scope of judicial review as under:-
"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the Page No.# 17/22 misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be Page No.# 18/22 another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"21.The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.
22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the Page No.# 19/22 nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank, etc."
(emphasis supplied).
19. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than an employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension.
20. The proposition of law, which can be crystallized from the aforesaid decision, are as under:-
(i) The employee continues to be a member of service of employer even after the order of suspension, but is not permitted to work.
Though he is not allowed to work and regular salary is not paid, subsistence allowance is paid to him during the period of suspension.
(ii) Suspension should not be passed in routine and Page No.# 20/22 arbitrary manner, like an administrative order, without any reasonable ground, as vindictive and in misuse of power. The gravity of the alleged of misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee has to be taken note of.
(iii) The primary object of suspension is to aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry.
(iv) There must be strong prima-facie case of
delinquency to place an employee under
suspension.
(v) Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent
out of the mischief range. The purpose is to
complete the proceedings unhindered.
(vi) Order of suspension can be resorted to pending
further investigation or contemplated
disciplinary action only on grave charges.
(vii) Competent Authority should take into
consideration relevant facts and attendant
circumstances as to how far and to what extent
public interest would suffer if the delinquent is not placed under suspension.
21. In the instant case, from the finding so recorded by the enquiry committee, it appears that the allegation, based on which the present petitioner was placed under suspension, is not grave in nature. The only ground of suspension is that he had allowed two students to appear in the examination whose attendances were below 50%. But, it appears from the documents placed on record they were allowed to appear in the examination on the recommendation of the Controller of Examination, Gauhati University. However, Page No.# 21/22 on withdrawal of recommendation by the Controller of Examination subsequently, they were also not allowed to appear in the examination. Ex-facie, it appears to be not a charge of grave misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious act of omission and commission and as already held herein above, the same spent its force.
21.1. It also appears that the enquiry committee in its report also recorded a finding that the Principal's claim that the decision was collectively taken with faculty members is contradicted by the faculty, who denied agreeing to the selective permission granted, yet it appears that from the proviso to Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India (Part IV - Rules of Legal Education), the power to allow a student to appear in the examination, who had failed secure 70% attendance, is vested with the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be. The similar power shall rest with the Vice- Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorised representative, in the absence of the Dean of Law. This being the legal position, the finding of the enquiry committee that the Principal's claim that the decision was collectively taken with faculty members is contradicted by the faculty, who denied agreeing to the selective permission granted, got no legs to stand upon. But, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, while placing the petitioner under suspension, has failed to take note of the same. .
21.2. Further, it appears that the Director has exercised his power in an arbitrary manner and without applying his mind independently to the chronology of events as described herein above. It also appears that the respondent authorities are found to be afflicted by suspension syndrome and the petitioner was placed under suspension just for nothing.
Page No.# 22/22
22. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a strong prima-facie case in his favour.
22.1. Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has not yet handed over the charge as the impugned suspension order which is sub-judice before this court and thus, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the other two requirements for granting interim-relief to the petitioner, also has to be found in his favour.
22.2. Thus, having found all the three requirements in favour of the petitioner, and further taking note of the given factual and legal matrix as well as the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to stay the impugned suspension order dated 09.12.2025. And accordingly, the same stands stayed till returnable date.
23. It appears that notice has not yet been issued in this case. Accordingly, it is provided that notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 06.01.2026. As all the respondents are being represented by Mr. Das, learned standing counsel, no formal notice is required to be issued to them. However, extra requisite copies of the petition be furnished to him during the course of the day.
24. List the matter on 06.01.2026. In the meantime, the respondent authorities shall file their affidavit-in-opposition.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant