WP(C) 4122/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Both these petitions relate to the orders involving the respective petitioners v is-a-vis the office and the institutions relatable to them. Whereas, by the ord er dated 12.05.2010 impugned in WP(C) No. 3319/2010, the petitioner therein, was sought to be dislodged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4122/2010 from the office of the Headmaster of No. 73 Sripur LP School, by the order dated 06.07.2010, as sailed in the latter writ petition the arrangement has been sought to be reverse d. By an order dated 28.07.2010 rendered in WP(C) No.4122/2010, status quo with regard to the service of the petitioner therein as Head Teacher at No. 73 Sripur LP School was ordered to be maintained. The petitioners, however, are at issue as to the incumbent who is actually holding the said office. Though, according t o the petitioner, in WP(C) No.3319/2010 the above interim order notwithstanding, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4122/2010 could not take over the said office, it i s per contra the latter. 02. I have heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner i n WP(C) No. 3319/2010, Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4122/2010 and Mr. MK Misra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Depar tment, Assam for the official respondents. 03. The relevant facts as can be culled out from the rival pleadings are that, prior to the orders propelling the parties for the confrontation on t he same issues, both of them were lodged with the 73 No. Sripur LP School, the p etitioner in WP(C) No. 4122/2010 as the Head Teacher thereof. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3319/2010 is next in the order of seniority in the said school. By an order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the BEEO, Katigorah, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 4122/2010 (hereinafter for short referred to as Mr. Barbhuiya) was tempo rarily attached to 955 No. Kadomtola LP School. He was, however, allowed to draw his salary etc. from his parent school. Though, by an order dated 06.01.2009 o f the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar this arrangement was kept in abeyance , by another order dated 16.02.2009 of the same authority, the petitioner in WP( C) No. 3319/2019 (hereafter for short referred to as the Namosudra) was allowed to act as In-charge Teacher of 73 No. Sripur LP School. By the said order, Mr. B arbhuiya was required to act as the Head Teacher of 955 Kadomtola LP School. Thi s arrangement was again reversed by an order dated 04.06.2009 of the In-charge D eputy Inspector of School, Silchar. 04. Being aggrieved, Mr. Namosudra assailed the order dated 04.06.20 09 before this Court in WP(C) No. 2637/2009, and on 03.07.2009 an order was pass ed maintaining the status quo with regard to his services as on that date. On 06 .07.2009 the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar in deference to the above inte rim order of this Court kept in abeyance the order dated 04.06.2009, following w hich Mr. Namosudra withdrew WP(C) No.2637/2009. The order dated 12.05.2010 of th e Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar followed, following the withdrawal of the aforementioned writ petition. The order dated 04.06.2009 was thus restored. Th ereby, in substance Mr. Barbhuiya was thus restored as the Head Teacher of the 7 3 Sripur LP School. Mr. Namosudra returned to this Court with WP(C) No. 3319/201 0, impugning the order dated 12.05.2010. No interim order was, however passed. While the matter rested at that, by the order dated 06.07.2010 the same authorit y, having regard to the reasons as recorded therein, decided against allowing Mr . Barbhuiya to function as the Head Teacher of 73 Sripur LP School. As the order would reveal, this decision was taken on the consideration that having regard t o the public compliant made against him levelling various imputations of serious nature and the pendency of a police case against him, it was undesirable that h e be allowed to hold the post of Head Teacher of the said school as, in particul ar, his presence in the said capacity had the potential of jeopardizing the pros pects of an inquiry proposed to be made into the said charges. 05 Mr. Bujarbaruah has urged that the charges levelled against Mr. Barbhuiya are utterly false and that the inquiry into the same purportedly conte mplated as on 19.08.2009 as referred to the impugned order has not been initiate d as on date. Without prejudice to the above, the learned counsel has urged that as evidently the impugned arrangement of attachment of Mr. Barbhuiya by dislodg ing him from the office of the Head Teacher of No. 73 Sripur LP School is founde d on some allegations, it is stigmatic as well as arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has further urged that the arrangement evi nces demotion of the petitioner as he has been made to act by the impugned order as the Head Teacher of the 955 Kadomtola LP School. On being queried by this Co urt, Mr. Bujarbaruah on instructions submitted that his (petitioner) pay and oth er conditions of service, however, have not been prejudicially affected by the o rder dated 06.07.2010. 06 Mr. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, thoug h has supported the impugned order, has candidly admitted that as on date the in quiry as contemplated against the Mr. Barbhuiya has not been commenced. 07 Mr. Mahmud on the other hand has urged that Mr. Namosudra as on date continues to be the Head Master In-charge of the 73 Sripur LP School and th at the claim of Mr. Barbhuiya of having returned to the said institution on the strength of the interim order of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 4122/2010 is wit hout any factual foundation. While endorsing the correctness of the accusation m ade against Mr. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel has argued that having regard to the office involved the decision is perfectly valid and justified and does not c all for any interference. He has further pointed out that a criminal case is als o pending against him in which investigation is in progress. 08 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleadings on record, it is prima facie established that allegatio ns of serious nature have been levelled against Mr. Barbhuiya (petitioner in WP( C) No. 4122/2010). The impugned order dated 06.07.2010 refers to a report dated 19.08.2009 of the BEEO, Katigorah in connection with a complaint lodged against Mr. Barbhuiy. That Katigorah PS Case No. 250/10 is pending against him as on dat e, is also a matter of record. According to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Sil char, the inquiry proposed to be made into the charges may be jeopardized if Mr. Barbhuiya is allowed to continue as the Head Teacher of No. 73 Sripur LP School and it is as an alternative arrangement that Mr. Namosudra has been allowed to continue as Head Teacher thereon in the interest of public service. 09 Having regard to the date of the order, whereby Mr. Barbhuiya wa s for the first time posted out at 73 Sripur LP School i.e. 26.12.2008, it canno t, on the basis of the materials presently available before this Court, be concl usively held that the same was impelled by the public complaint against him. Be that as it may, the series of orders passed thereafter demonstrate a vacillating mind of the concerned authorities of the Department and the reason therefor, is not clearly forthcoming. The impugned order on the face of it reveals that the same is in order to facilitate an inquiry into the charges brought against Mr. B arbhuiya. Though, in the above perspective, the contention of Mr. Barbhuiya that the action has a punitive flavour cannot be brushed aside wholly, having regard to the arrangement, which evidently is temporary in nature and the object to fa cilitate which it is sought to be effected, this Court is not inclined to interf ere with the impugned order dated 06.07.2010. It is however, patent that though the departmental authorities professed that an inquiry had been made by the Bloc k Elementary Education Officer, Katigorah in connection with which a report has been submitted on 19.08.2009 following a public complaint against Mr. Barbhuiya, the records do not reveal follow up steps, if any, taken pursuant thereto. The impugned order however, seeks to convey that an inquiry into the charges is sti ll envisaged. Further, as referred to hereinabove, a police case on a related c harge/charges is also pending investigation against Mr. Barbhuiya. 10. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that considering the nature of the allegations against Mr. Barbhuiya, t he correctness or otherwise of which is yet to be ascertained, it would not be a ppropriate to allow him to function as Head Teacher of No. 73 Sripur LP School. In any view of the matter, the arrangement as on date whereunder he is to act a s the Head Teacher of the 955 Kadamtola LP School does not adversely affect his service conditions. On a consideration of all above, the order dated 06.07.2010 is left uninterfered . The above notwithstanding, the delay on the part of the departmental authoriti es to inquire into the allegations levelled against Mr. Barbhuiya and that too w ithout any convincing reason is distressing and appalling. If they are in fact, genuinely interested to conduct the same, they ought to take speedy steps in thi s regard and arrive at a conclusion in connection therewith. By no means, they c an be allowed to bid time and leave the incumbent in a lurch as being done. Howe ver, having regard to the supervening public interest vis-a-vis the office invol ved, the above failing of the departmental authority notwithstanding, this Court is, for the present, not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and inst ead considers it appropriate to direct them to complete the inquiry as early as possible. As the proposed inquiry seems to be pending from 19.08.2009, this Cour t considers it necessary to fix a time frame for the completion thereof and outl ines it to be three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the inquiry is not desirable, appropriate o rder(s) in this regard be passed forthwith. If it is otherwise, the same if not completed within the time frame as fixed by this Court, stringent measures would be resorted to. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, is hereby required to conduct the inquiry and submit a report before this Court within two (2) mon ths herefrom. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs. A cop y of this order be furnished to Mr. Misra, learned Standing Counsel Education De partment, Assam so as to enable him to do the needful.