Staff Reporter
Guwahati: A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami, held that obtaining a degree without taking prior permission amounts to misconduct, violating statutory conduct rules. The bench also observed that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings (DP), an employee cannot be appointed to an in-charge promotional post, even though the degree itself remains valid.
In the present case, the Headmaster of Gotanagar High School retired on July 31, 2024. This resulted in a vacancy that needed to be filled by an in-charge Head Master. The respondent in the case had been serving as a Graduate Teacher in the same school since 1990. He was also considered the senior-most Assistant Teacher in the seniority list.
However, the authorities concerned noticed that the respondent had obtained his B.Ed degree in 2016 without seeking prior permission from the appointing authority, violating Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the authorities ignored his claim and instead appointed another person as the In-charge Headmaster. Being aggrieved by the decision, he filed the writ petition.
During the pendency of the proceeding, the Single Judge ruled in favour of the respondent. It held that obtaining a degree without permission may be misconduct, but it does not invalidate the degree itself. Aggrieved, the Assam government challenged this decision before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
The state government’s counsel argued that the respondent could not be permitted to take charge as In-charge Head Master because a disciplinary proceeding had already been initiated against him for obtaining his B.Ed degree without the mandatory prior permission from the appointing authority, and a show-cause notice was issued to him.
It was further argued that allowing the respondent to hold the charge of Head Master while the disciplinary proceedings were pending could prejudice the inquiry, as the respondent may manipulate official records or influence witnesses. Executive instructions or office memorandums (OMs) cannot override statutory rules, the state further argued.
The bench observed that the respondent had obtained his B.Ed degree in 2016 without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority, which was a violation of Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
The Court further observed that an executive instruction or OM cannot override statutory rules. The OM dated July 28, 2014, provided for prior intimation, but it was noted that the respondent had not even given any intimation to the Inspector of Schools. Also, no permission has been given to the respondent to pursue a B.Ed. degree by the Inspector of Schools.
The Division Bench relied on several earlier judgements of the HC to arrive at the conclusion that a violation of any of the provisions of the 1965 Rules is misconduct. However, the degree will be considered valid.
In light of the disciplinary proceeding pending against the respondent, the Court held that whenever a departmental enquiry is pending against an employee, the result of such enquiry is kept in a sealed cover and is opened only after the selection process is concluded. A person who is not absolved of the charges cannot be promoted.
The bench observed that the post of In-charge Headmaster being adhoc or temporary in nature, the posting is a kind of promotion. Therefore, if an officer is ineligible for regular promotion during a departmental proceeding, he has no right to hold an in-charge post during that time.
With the aforesaid observations, the Single Judge’s order by which the respondent had been allowed to hold the post of In-charge Headmaster was set aside by the Division Bench.