Gauhati HC: Employee Deemed Under Suspension From Date of Quashed Dismissal Order, Entitled to Subsistence Allowance for 12-Year Interregnum

Dibrugarh University must pay subsistence allowance with legally permissible revisions for the period 31 December 2004 to 2 November 2016, after the Division Bench upheld a Single Judge's finding that the employee was under deemed suspension once his original dismissal was set aside on a procedural ground.

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar with Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dibrugarh University on 16 June 2026, confirming that a former Lower Division Assistant must be treated as having been under deemed suspension for the twelve-year gap between the quashing of his dismissal order in 2015 and the fresh penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on 2 November 2016. The bench found no perversity in the Single Judge's reasoning and declined to interfere, leaving the University to compute and release subsistence allowance — along with all applicable revisions — for that entire interregnum. The case illustrates how delayed resolution of disciplinary proceedings can impose a significant financial burden on an employer.

The Long Chain of Disciplinary and Judicial Proceedings

Lachit Borthakur served as a Lower Division Assistant in the Finance and Accounts Branch of Dibrugarh University. After a departmental inquiry for misconduct, he was removed from service on 31 December 2004.

Borthakur challenged that removal in WP(C) No.2406/2005. A Single Judge found that the disciplinary authority had acted on the inquiry report before giving him a chance to represent against the inquiry findings. The Single Judge further noticed that the opportunity given to Borthakur to represent against the proposed punishment had been treated as unnecessary in light of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India. On these grounds, the punishment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh decision, after offering Borthakur an opportunity to reply to the Enquiry Officer's findings.

The remand judgment was passed on 9 February 2015. The Disciplinary Authority then, on 2 November 2016, imposed compulsory retirement, made effective from 31 December 2004 — the original date of removal.

The Back-Wages Dispute and the University's Position

Borthakur, aggrieved by the 2 November 2016 order, filed WP(C) No.1130/2017. That petition was disposed of on 28 July 2022, directing the University to pay all amounts due within a specified period. At that stage, the University's counsel had submitted that the University should be allowed to verify the precise amount owed before payment.

Back-wages were not forthcoming. Borthakur then filed WP(C) No.1018/2023, seeking back-wages from 1 January 2005 to 2 November 2016 — the entire period between the original quashed order and the fresh penalty. The Single Judge in that round held that the 2 November 2016 order operated prospectively and not retrospectively, so compulsory retirement would be operative only from that date. Borthakur was directed to make a representation before the University, which was required to consider it in accordance with law.

The University, after considering the representation, rejected the claim. Its reasoning was that Borthakur had not rendered service from 31 December 2004, was not on the University's rolls, and that the 2015 remand judgment had never directed reinstatement — only a fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the inquiry report. The University concluded that its employment relationship with Borthakur was terminated from 31 December 2004, reviving only for the limited purpose of the fresh disciplinary process. The prayer for back-wages for the interregnum was rejected on 2 May 2023.

Single Judge's Finding: Deemed Suspension, Not Back-Wages

Borthakur challenged that rejection in WP(C) No.3344/2023. The Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 7 June 2024, took a different view from the University's position. The Single Judge reasoned that once the order of punishment dated 31 December 2004 was set aside in 2015, Borthakur had to be treated as being back in service — not because he was exonerated, but because the disciplinary process had to recommence from the stage of giving him the inquiry report. That recommencement was possible only if he was deemed to be on the rolls of the University.

Accepting that logic, the Single Judge concluded that Borthakur was under deemed suspension with effect from 31 December 2004 until 2 November 2016. He was therefore entitled to subsistence allowance for that entire period, along with legally permissible revisions. The Single Judge also noted that the University had, in the course of WP(C) No.1018/2023, agreed to verify the amount due for the interregnum — and had then walked back from that position by refusing to pay subsistence allowance as well.

The Single Judge set out the operative conclusions in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the impugned judgment, which the Division Bench reproduced in full. Paragraph 19 stated: “the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2004, is under deemed suspension.” Paragraph 20 confirmed entitlement to subsistence allowance from 31 December 2004 to 2 November 2016 with applicable revisions. Paragraph 21 directed the University to compute the arrears accordingly and release them.

Dibrugarh University's Appeal Before the Division Bench

Dibrugarh University, represented by Mr. K. Gogoi, appealed the impugned judgment in WA/419/2024. Borthakur was represented by Dr. R. Sarmah.

The Division Bench, hearing the matter on 16 June 2026, examined whether the Single Judge's reasoning was perverse or legally flawed. It noted that back-wages are not automatic upon reinstatement, particularly where reinstatement follows the setting aside of a removal order on a technical ground rather than on a finding of innocence. However, the bench drew a clear distinction: the claim here was not for back-wages but for subsistence allowance during deemed suspension, and the two are governed by different considerations.

The bench accepted the Single Judge's chain of reasoning. Setting aside the 2004 order of removal without exonerating Borthakur, and remanding for fresh proceedings from the inquiry-report stage, necessarily implied that Borthakur was to be treated as being in service during that interregnum. A fresh disciplinary process running from the stage of furnishing the inquiry report could only operate against someone who was notionally in service. Deemed suspension was the appropriate legal characterisation of that interregnum status.

The Bench's Observation on Delay

Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, writing for the bench, made a pointed observation about the cost of protracted litigation. The twelve-year gap between the quashed order of 2004 and the fresh penalty of 2016, compounded by further rounds of litigation up to 2026, had created a situation where the University was now required to pay subsistence allowance with twelve years of revisions — a “heavy drain on the purse of the University which cannot be undone at this stage.”

The bench did not apportion blame but made clear that the financial consequence was a direct product of the time taken to conclude the disciplinary and judicial process. That observation carries practical weight for institutions managing long-running service disputes: the longer a remanded disciplinary matter remains unresolved, the larger the deemed-suspension liability that accrues.

The bench expressly stated that it did not find the impugned judgment to be perverse or bad in law, and on that basis declined to interfere.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No.419 of 2024 filed by Dibrugarh University. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7 June 2024 in WP(C) No.3344/2023 stands. Dibrugarh University is required to compute subsistence allowance payable to Lachit Borthakur for the period 31 December 2004 to 2 November 2016, accounting for all applicable revisions, and to release the arrears so computed.