The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Dibrugarh University challenging a Single Judge's order directing payment of subsistence allowance to its former employee, Lachit Borthakur. The Division Bench held that there was no legal infirmity in treating the employee as being under deemed suspension after his dismissal order had been set aside during earlier proceedings.
Background of the Case
Lachit Borthakur was serving as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Finance and Accounts Branch of Dibrugarh University when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on allegations of misconduct. He was removed from service on December 31, 2004.
The dismissal order was challenged before the High Court through a writ petition. In February 2015, the Court set aside the punishment after finding that the disciplinary authority had decided to impose the penalty before giving the employee an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision after following the prescribed procedure. Thereafter, on November 2, 2016, the University imposed the lesser penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from December 31, 2004.
Subsequent litigation arose when the respondent sought monetary benefits for the intervening period. While the University rejected his claim for back wages on the ground that he had not remained on its rolls during that period, the Single Judge later held that he was entitled to subsistence allowance by treating him as being under deemed suspension. The University challenged that finding before the Division Bench.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Division Bench agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge. It observed that although the earlier dismissal order had been set aside, the respondent had not been exonerated of the charges. Since the disciplinary proceedings were required to continue from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report, he had to be treated as remaining in service for that limited purpose and, consequently, under deemed suspension.
The bench observed,
"The reasons assigned in the impugned judgment are self-explanatory. Twelve years delay in finally concluding the matter has caused heavy drain on the purse of the University which cannot be undone at this stage."
The Court further clarified that back wages do not automatically follow whenever an order of dismissal is set aside. However, in the facts of the present case, the respondent was entitled to receive only the subsistence allowance payable during the period of deemed suspension, together with revisions permissible under law.
Finding no perversity or error in the Single Judge's reasoning, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving intact the direction requiring Dibrugarh University to compute and pay the respondent subsistence allowance, along with applicable revisions, for the period of deemed suspension.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dibrugarh University and Anr. v. Lachit Borthakur
Case Number: WA/419/2024
Judge: Hon'ble Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon'ble Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Decision Date: 16 June 2026
