Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 105 (MEG)

Arphar D. Tyngkan v. State of Meghalaya

2015-07-15

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard Mr. S Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. NG Shylla, learned GA appearing for the State respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned suspension order dated 28.01.2015. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Enforcement Inspector in the year 1996. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District Transport Officer (for short ‘DTO’) in the Transport Department, Meghalaya and he was posted as DTO in Ri Bhoi District on 20.06.2013 and had continued to work in the said post for the last almost two years. It is the further case of the petitioner that without giving any notice to him, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 for placing the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6 sub-rule (a) of the Meghalaya Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2011. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of placing him under suspension for a number of months, the respondents had not framed the article of charge. 4. The respondents No.1-4 had filed affidavit-in-opposition in the present writ petition. Para 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.1-4 reads as follows:- “13. That in reply to Para 10 of the writ petition, the respondent states that the petitioner appears to be well aware, as is also admitted by the petitioner, with regard to the fact that there was failure on his part to install tamper proof hard disk of the computer for automatically recording data at the weighbridge and the same is definitely a lapse on the part of the petitioner as because the petitioner under his jurisdiction was duty bound to see that the order of the Government vide letter dated 29.12.2014 in pursuance of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal direction dated 29.12.2014 was implemented in full spirit by all concerned which includes the National Informatics Centre. Therefore, the ground of suspension of the petitioner is definitely justified and tenable. It may also be mentioned herein that the petitioner knowing his fault could have filed a detailed representation before the concerned authorities/State respondents, thereby giving explanation in that regard and could have prayed for his reinstatement, etc., which could have been actively considered by the concerned authorities which the petitioner did not do till date.” 5. Ms. It may also be mentioned herein that the petitioner knowing his fault could have filed a detailed representation before the concerned authorities/State respondents, thereby giving explanation in that regard and could have prayed for his reinstatement, etc., which could have been actively considered by the concerned authorities which the petitioner did not do till date.” 5. Ms. NG Shylla, learned GA appearing for the State respondents by referring to para 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition contended that the petitioner did not file any representation before the concerned authority for reinstatement in service. Ms. NG Shylla, learned GA further contended that in case the petitioner files a representation, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of his representation. Mr. S Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that instruction has been received from the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to file a representation provided the authority concerned consider and dispose of his representation within a time-frame. 6. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a representation mentioning his case in detail to the respondent No.2 the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department for consideration of his reinstatement in service. It is also made clear that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Transport Department shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 7. To the extent indicated above, this writ petition is allowed.