WP(C)/388/2026 of Pani Taba Vs The State of AP and Anr on 17 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 18.08.2026 Heard Mr. P. Bate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 07.08.2026, passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect.

3. Considering the issue raised in this writ petition and the limited ground of challenge to the impugned order of suspension, this writ petition is heard and taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself, without issuing formal notice to the respondents, as the challenge is confined to the alleged violation of the principle of natural justice on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order of suspension.

4. The petitioner is serving as Vice Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Nyapin, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. While serving as Principal In-charge of the said school, due to the shortage of Science subject teacher for the academic session 2025-2026 and on account of the untimely demise of the incumbent Science teacher and considering the difficulties faced by the students, the School Management Development Committee has taken a resolution to appoint one Shri Pani Karsang, who possesses a Civil Engineering Certificate, on a temporary basis. Accordingly, the said Shri Pani Karsang was appointed temporarily.

5. The genesis of the matter lies in the memorandum submitted by the Nyapin Phassang Students’ Union on 15.06.2026 before the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, essentially seeking transfer of the petitioner from the said Higher Secondary School on various allegations. On receipt of the said memorandum, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a show cause notice on 17.06.2026 to the petitioner, directing him to appear in person and submit his written reply before the Head of the Department with regard to the allegation of appointment of Shri Pani Karsang to the post of Junior Teacher (officiating) against the vacancy of Junior Teacher, which was alleged to be improper and unbecoming of a Government servant.

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 22.06.2026, wherein he had admitted that due to shortage of Science teacher and in the interest of the students, Shri Pani Karsang was appointed temporarily. The petitioner also explained the circumstances leading to such appointment, including the recommendation of the School Management Development Committee and the request made by the descendants of the landlord who had donated their ancestral land for establishment of the Government school. On receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 came to be issued, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect contemplating departmental proceedings.

6. Mr. P. Bate, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned suspension order has been issued in violation of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as before issuing the suspension order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that, on this single ground, the impugned order of suspension dated 07.08.2026 is unsustainable and as such is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, on the other hand, submits that there is no requirement in law that, before placing a Government servant under suspension, a notice or opportunity of hearing must necessarily be given to him. He submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in exercise of the power under the applicable provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in contemplation of departmental proceedings and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension.

8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

9. The one and only ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 is the alleged violation of the principle of natural justice on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order of suspension.

10. Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate, or the disciplinary authority, or any other authority empowered in that behalf, may place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending.

11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the power to place a Government servant under suspension can be exercised where disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending. The provision does not stipulate that a prior notice or an opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the Government servant before an order of suspension is passed.

12. In the present case, although law does not required of hearing before the placing the government servant on suspension pending departmental proceedings, the records reveal that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 17.06.2026 directing to appear in person and submit written reply to which the petitioner has complied with by appearing before the authority and submitting the reply, as directed.

13. Assuming that a notice was required to be issued, although no such notice is required in law, it is apparent from the record that a notice had already been issued to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid allegation, pursuant to which he submitted his reply. Therefore, in any view of the matter, there is no question of violation of principle of natural justice. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 placing the petitioner under suspension, in contemplation of departmental proceedings, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity on the ground taken by the petitioner. The respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the applicable rules/law regulating the suspension and the departmental proceedings.

14. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant