Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 193 (GAU)

Prafulla Hazarika v. State of Assam

2016-03-15

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as Mr. H. Bezbarua, learned counsel representing the State Respondents. 2. The petitioner is holding the substantive post of Assistant Teacher at Chanowabori R.K.M.E. School in the district of Morigaon. On 26.3.2015 he was placed under suspension by order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The ground assigned is that the petitioner while holding the charge as In-charge Headmaster of the school defied the order of higher authority in not handing over the charge of Headmaster to the proforma respondent no.5. Alleging insubordination on his part, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings. The order for payment of subsistence allowance was made. 3. With regard to the said suspension order, the District Elementary Education Officer, Morigaon had addressed a letter to the Director of Elementary Education on 30.3.2015 to the effect that the suspension order be reviewed and the petitioner be reinstated in service allowing him to continue as Headmaster-in-Charge of the School. As regards the new incumbent i.e. proforma respondent no.5 who was required to take over charge of In-charge Headmaster, he had submitted a letter addressed to the petitioner on 11.3.2015 whereby he admitted to the fact that there was an error on his part in not submitting the promotion letter before the petitioner and for lodging a false complaint against the petitioner before the authority. 4. This Court while issuing Notice of motion on 25.6.2015 had directed the respondent no.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 29.5.2015 wherein prayer had been made for revoking the order of suspension. 5. Mr. Bezbaruah, learned counsel representing the State Respondents submits that he has no instruction as to whether or not the said representation dated 29.5.2015 has received consideration of the respondent no.2. 6. Be that as it may, it appears that petitioner was placed under suspension way back on 26.3.2015 and until this date the respondent authorities have not initiated or put into motion any disciplinary proceeding, save and except a show cause notice being issued in that respect. 7. The power to place a person under suspension can be traced to Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 7. The power to place a person under suspension can be traced to Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Although suspension is not a punishment by itself, the requirement however is that the period of suspension should be reduced to the barest minimum period. The Executive Instructions laying down the principles and procedure with regard to suspension provides that charges and statements of allegations are to be served within three months from the date of suspension and in case where it is not reasonably practicable to do so and the continued suspension of the person is considered necessary in public interest, the authority concerned should move the administrative department detailing the nature of allegation and the reasons for which the charges could not be prepared so that the department can advise whether any further extension of the period of suspension should be permitted or not. To reiterate, in the instant case the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.3.2015 pending drawal of departmental proceedings which, however, have not been set in motion until this date. 8. In this connection Mr. J. Roy places reliance in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . Referring to paragraphs 11 and 21 thereof, it is contended that the concept of suspension being essentially temporary or transitory in nature must perforce be of short duration. In the absence of sound reason, if the period of suspension is allowed to continue for an indeterminate period, it would be punitive in nature. Mr. Roy also contends that the period of suspension should not normally extend beyond three months and unless the memorandum of charge/charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent, the period of suspension beyond three months would stand invalidated. 9. As alluded to above, it is almost one year since the date when the petitioner was placed under suspension. No departmental/disciplinary proceedings have been initiated until this date. Due diligence on the part of the State Respondents to bring the matter to its logical conclusion is also wholly absent in the present case. 9. As alluded to above, it is almost one year since the date when the petitioner was placed under suspension. No departmental/disciplinary proceedings have been initiated until this date. Due diligence on the part of the State Respondents to bring the matter to its logical conclusion is also wholly absent in the present case. The indifferent attitude on the part of the respondents is also evident from the fact that despite the order of this Court directing consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the same had not been done or, at least, no instruction could be furnished by the learned State Counsel in that respect. 10. In case of any grave charge against the petitioner the remedy available to the respondent authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings is always open. However, in so far as permitting procrastination of the period of suspension and allowing it to continue for a indeterminate period, the same cannot have the sanction of this Court. 11. In view of the above and considering the guidelines governing the concept of suspension as well as the observations made in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the impugned order of suspension dated 26.3.2015 is interfered with. The same is set aside with direction to the State Respondents to take steps for reinstating the petitioner to his substantive post. 12. The exercise which is required to be taken by the State Respondents for reinstating the petitioner shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order before the concerned authorities for their doing the needful. 13. Resultantly, this writ petition stands disposed of.