Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 645 (GAU)

Thokchom Damu Singh v. State of Manipur and Anr.

2006-07-19

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
1. Heard Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The fact, stated in short, of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant in the office of the Praja High School, Govt. of Manipur by an order dated 31.1.1976. After serving for some years, the petitioner had been regularly appointed as LDC by an order dated 3.2.1979 issued by the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur, after the Govt. Aided Mayanglanjing Higher Secondary School had been taken over by the Government. 3. It is said that while the petitioner is serving as LDC, the respondent no.2, i.e. the Director of Education/S, issued an order being No.2/92/2004- ED(S), Imphal, the 15th March, 2005, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/4 to the present writ petition, for placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule-10 of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965 in contemplation of a departmental proceedings. 4. The case of the petitioner's case is that he had been placed under suspension under the said order of the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur dated 15.3.2005 but the respondents have not yet prepared the articles of charges. Such being the situation, even after the lapse of 16(sixteen) months, departmental proceeding is not yet started. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that long continuation of suspension pending departmental proceeding is punitive and affect the livelihood of the suspended employee by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in O.P.Gupta -vrs - Union of India: 1987 (4) SCC 328 . In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also pressed the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. -vrs - U.P. Bhatia: 1998 (9) SCC 311 into service. By referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court should insist that the departmental proceedings should be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible. 6. -vrs - U.P. Bhatia: 1998 (9) SCC 311 into service. By referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court should insist that the departmental proceedings should be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible. 6. Taking into consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also perusal of the record this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to initiate the disciplinary proceedings if at all necessary and complete the same within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order of this court. The petitioner shall cooperate the disciplinary authority in holding the departmental enquiry. In case of failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period of four months, petitioner should be reinstated in service without prejudicing to disciplinary proceedings. It is made clear that the petitioner should be paid subsistence allowances for the period of suspension. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.