Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 655 (GAU)

R. K. Chinglen Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2005-09-06

M.B.K.SINGH

body2005
This Writ petition has been filed praying mainly for quashing the suspension order dated 22.06.1995(Annexure-A/2) by which the petitioner, who was a Lower Division Clerk of the Food & Civil Supplies attached to the office of the S.D.O., Kamjong at the relevant time, was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings against him for misappropriation of sale proceeds of I.T.D.P. rice amounting to Rs. 11,76,000/- the impugned suspension order was passed by the Director, FCS, Manipur. 2. I have heard Mr. Dolen Phurailatpam, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Bidyamani Devi,learned Addl.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have also perused the materials before the Court. 3. There is no dispute that even though the impugned suspension order was passed on 22.6.95, i.e. more than 10 years ago from today, in contemplation of a Disciplinary proceeding, it is still at initial stage. No witness has been examined, it is not known as to how long the proceeding is going to take. According to the learned Addl.G.A., the delay in the proceeding of the disciplinary enquiry is due to changes of Enquiry officers. Whatever be the reason the fact remains that the proceeding has been pending for more than 10 years. As per submission of the learned Addl. G.A., a criminal case is also pending as against the petitioner but nothing is said about the stage of the case. It is not known if any charge sheet has been submitted as against the petitioner or not. At the same time, it is ascertained that the suspension order has not been reviewed up till now during the period of 10 years. The subsistence allowance given to the petitioner is also said not have been revised. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances, it is not fair and just on the part of the concerned respondents to kept the petitioner under suspension for such a long period without making any review of it. 4. It is well settled that since an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person after having him found guilty, there is a need to expedite pending proceeding against him. At the same time, keeping a person under suspension for a long time is punitive in nature and it affects means of livelihood. The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. At the same time, keeping a person under suspension for a long time is punitive in nature and it affects means of livelihood. The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India O.M.No.221/18/65-AVD dated 7.9.1965, quoted by this Court in the judgment and order of W.P.(C)No.477 of 2003 dated 23.05.2005 and the judgment and order passed in W.P(C) No. 437 of 2003 dated 11.7.05 in connection with dealing with an employee under suspension for a long period, are reproduced below: “1.Instances have been noticed where inordinate delay has taken place in filing charge-sheets in Courts in cases where prosecution is launched and in serving chargesheets in cases where disciplinary proceedings are initiated. 2. Even though suspension may not be considered as a punishment, it does constitute a very great hardship for a Govt. servant. In fairness to him, it is essential to ensure that his period is reduced in the barest minimum. 3. It has, therefore, been decided that in cases of officers under suspension, the investigation should be completed and a charge-sheet filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of prosecution or served on the officer in cases of departmental proceedings within six months as a rule. If the investigation is likely to take more time, it should be considered whether the suspension order should be revoked and the officer permitted to resume duty. If the presence of the officer is considered detrimental to the collection of evidence, etc. or if he is likely to tamper with the evidence, he may be transferred on revocation of suspension order.” 5. Though the said guidelines may not have the force of law, non compliance of them will amount to arbitrary action calling for interference by this Court. 6. Having regards to all the relevant considerations, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that the concerned respondents shall complete the disciplinary proceedings or enquiry as against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the impugned suspension order dated 22.6.1995 shall be deemed to have been revoked after the expiry of the said period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by the concerned respondents/competent authority. Petitioner shall co operate in the matter. Petitioner is to submit certified copy of this order to the concerned authority within five days from today. Petitioner shall co operate in the matter. Petitioner is to submit certified copy of this order to the concerned authority within five days from today. It is clarified that this order shall not stand on the way of the respondents taking any appropriate action against the petitioner depending on the result of the pending criminal case. Writ petition is dispose of. No order as to costs.