Meghalaya High Court: In two petitions, the petitioners had sought the recall of the suspension order issued against them, along with related approval order and the enquiry report. They had also sought payment of the subsistence allowance and salary for the year 2008-2009. A Single Judge Bench of W. Diengdoh J. set aside and quashed the suspension orders, holding that it had become infructuous. Further, the Court directed the authorities concerned to pay the arrears subsistence allowance to the petitioners from the period they had been placed under suspension till date.
Background
The petitioners were two teachers of St. Mary’s RCLP School, Nonglwai, West Khasi Hills District. One teacher (Petitioner 1) joined the school as Assistant Teacher in 2003 and the other teacher (Petitioner 2) joined in the same capacity in 1995.
They were suspended by order dated 13-7-2013 which was approved by the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer. The suspension proceedings were not concluded even after more than 6 years. Further, the statutory subsistence allowance due to the petitioners was not paid to them.
The petitioners were not paid due salaries for which they requested the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nongstoin, for release of the same. However, they were issued warning memos that they have remained absent from duty for a long time. They approached the Gauhati High Court.
During the pendency of hearing, the School Managing Committee passed a resolution dated 13-07-2013 whereby it was resolved to place the petitioners under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. It got the approval of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Nongstoin.
The Court had directed the Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioners had really rendered their services as teachers in the said school during the period for which they had alleged that they had not been paid their salaries.
The Enquiry Report revealed that there was a dispute as regards the ownership and management of the school, that is, St Mary’s RCLP School between the School’s Managing Committee and Francis Dkhar, former Secretary of the School Managing Committee, herein and the same was settled in favour of the Roman Catholic Church by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in 2013. It concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to their salaries as they had not rendered their services at the school, which was duly recognised by the Government.
The petitioners contended that no formal disciplinary proceeding had been initiated by the authorities, and no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioners which was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The respondents contended that in view of the Enquiry Report, the petitioners should be treated as such employees who resigned from service and consequently the bond of service came to an end automatically. Respondents also maintained that thus no enquiry or disciplinary proceeding was deemed necessary.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Whether the petitioners can be counted as teachers of St. Mary’s RCLP School recognized by the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya as a Government Aided School or not?
The Court viewed that the petitioners were initially appointed and duly approved as Assistant Teachers by the competent authority in the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya against sanctioned posts. Further, appropriate budgetary allocation as far as their salary was concerned had also been duly indicated in the annual statement showing the detailed calculation of pay and allowances in respect of Non-Govt. Schools Teachers for the year 2011-2012.
Therefore, officially, the names of the petitioners appeared in the roll of the St. Mary’s RCLP School, Nonglwai run by the Roman Catholic Church. The Court concluded that the petitioners are officially teachers at the school run by the Roman Catholic Church.
Whether they have voluntarily and willfully remained absent or have abandoned their services as teachers of the said school or not?
The Court held that it cannot be said that the petitioners had voluntarily or willfully abandoned their services accepting the explanation of the petitioners that they were not aware of the fact that all along they had been teaching at the school not officially recognised. The Court considered the said explanation because the confirmation of official status of the school managed by the Roman Catholic Church was based on the 2013 order issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department and it was not officially made known to the petitioners till September 2019.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings against them in the form of suspension have been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules or not?
The Court held that the authorities concerned had failed to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with relevant rules and procedures as far as the disciplinary action taken against the petitioners was concerned.
Whether they are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the respective petition or not?
The Court set aside and quashed the suspension order stating that it had become infructuous. Further, the Court directed the authorities concerned to pay the arrears subsistence allowance to the petitioners from the period they had been placed under suspension till date in terms of Rule 9 of the Service Rule for Employees of Government Aided Schools within two months.
[Felicita Rmen v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 790, decided on 25-7-2025.]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Philemon Nongbri, Advocate, W.G.R. Mihsill, Advocate and R. Pahsyntiew, Advocate.
For the Respondents: N.D. Chullai, AAG and Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA