Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 568 (GAU)

ANISUZZAMAN LASKAR v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-06-20

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner i.e. Anisuz Zaman Laskar, assisted by Mr. B. Chetri, Advocate. Also heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned senior Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. D. Bora appears on behalf of respondent no. 4. This order is only in respect of WP(C) 1022/2016. 2. Challenge is made to the Order dated 15.02.2016 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. The said order was passed under the hand of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department. 3. A two-fold challenge is made, in that, this was by way of a desperate step taken by the State Respondents when time and again the design of the respondents to transfer the petitioner from one place to another was frustrated at the intervention of this Court. Secondly, the said order of suspension dated 15.02.2016 was primarily at the behest of the respondent no. 4 who is the local MLA of 14, Borkhola Constituency, Assam. 4. Mr. M.K. Choudhury have referred to the various transfer orders to which the petitioner was subjected to as well as the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions interfering with the said transfer orders. It is also contended that the said transfer orders were issued on a complaint lodged by a non-government organisation by the name of Sarbangin Manab Kalyan Sangha which, however, was withdrawn by the said Sangha in course of time. Challenge to the last transfer order from Borkhola to Dhubri was also made on the ground that the petitioner being entrusted with NRC work, as such, in terms of the Apex Court’s order, it was not open to the respondent concerned to issue the transfer order. 5. The present controversy is however on a different footing, in that, by the impugned Order dated 15.02.2016 the petitioner was placed under suspension on grounds indicated therein. The extent of the role of the respondent no. 4 in the matter of placing the petitioner under suspension will also stand noticed in the present order. 6. Turning to the order of suspension dated 15.02.2016, facts appearing is that a report had been received from the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar dated 09.10.2015 indicating that the petitioner who is a Block Development Officer is involved in rampant corruption. 4 in the matter of placing the petitioner under suspension will also stand noticed in the present order. 6. Turning to the order of suspension dated 15.02.2016, facts appearing is that a report had been received from the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar dated 09.10.2015 indicating that the petitioner who is a Block Development Officer is involved in rampant corruption. This report of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar is, however, based on a report submitted by the General Secretary/President/Members of the non-governmental organisation, as mentioned above. With regard to the said allegation, one Sri M.K. Das, ACS, District Development Commissioner, Cachar had undertaken a physical verification with regard to the implementation of works under Borkhola Development Block and by his Report dated 10.08.2015, anomalies had been found in respect of implementation of the construction of a boundary wall of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Krira Prakalpa, for which an amount of Rs. 57,00,000/- had been sanctioned. As per the Report, as against the small portion of work done, the petitioner had withdrawn a sum over Rs. 44,00,000/- towards material expenditures. Similarly, there were anomalies in respect of implementation of the Indira Gandhi Adarsh Paki Path at Choto Dudhpatil Grant. The said Order dated 15.02.2016 also records that the petitioner has violated the guidelines in respect of implementation of the approved schemes only to fulfil his vested interest. As the allegations were found to be serious in nature, requiring detailed enquiry, and also in view of the fact that the presence of the petitioner would affect the enquiry and also having regard to the fact that the matter involved misappropriation of Government money and gross financial irregularities on the part of the petitioner, the Order dated 15.02.2016 came to be issued in exercise of powers under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. A satisfaction was also recorded that there are sufficient materials on record for drawing up departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It is also recorded that in the meantime a Show Cause Notice has also been issued to the petitioner by letter dated 13.11.2015. 7. Mr. M.K. Choudhury submits that, in fact, the petitioner’s suspension has been engineered by the respondent no. 4. Also, on this date, the petitioner has no clear instruction as to whether a reply has been made pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2015. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. M.K. Choudhury submits that, in fact, the petitioner’s suspension has been engineered by the respondent no. 4. Also, on this date, the petitioner has no clear instruction as to whether a reply has been made pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2015. 8. Mr. B. Chetri, on the other hand, submits that the Order dated 15.02.2016 would itself indicate the serious nature of the case which, prima facie, shows involvement of the petitioner for causing loss of Government money and gross financial irregularities. Mr. Chetri also submits that suspension, not being a punishment, no interference of this Court is called for, in as much as, the Order dated 15.02.2016 prima facie discloses misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 9. Mr. M.K. Choudhury while imputing direct interference made by the respondent no. 4 which eventually resulted in the Order dated 15.02.2016, placed reliance in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (2) GLT 786 in the case of Dr. Ghanashyam Nath v. Dr. Homeswar Kalita and Others. Mr. Choudhury contends that the order of suspension dated 15.02.2016 having been passed solely at the behest of the respondent no. 4, who is the local MLA, as such the said order is bad. According to Mr. Choudhury, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam had only endorsed to the views and directions of the said respondent no. 4. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. The challenge being made to the Order dated 15.02.2016, a close scrutiny is made to the contents thereof. The allegations as made against the petitioner is not reiterated as the same have already been noticed above. The most significant part of the Order dated 15.02.2016 is that there is no reference, whatsoever, of any directions or views expressed by the respondent no. 4. The said order of suspension is apparently a product of an independent application of mind on the part of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. This order does not reflect that the author of the order had abdicated his statutory duties /responsibilities and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4. The role of the respondent no. 4 is not reflected in the Order dated 15.02.2016. of Assam in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. This order does not reflect that the author of the order had abdicated his statutory duties /responsibilities and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4. The role of the respondent no. 4 is not reflected in the Order dated 15.02.2016. Accordingly, the case-law relied upon, do not come to the aid of the petitioner. 11. The power to place a Government servant under suspension can be had from Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. According to the said Rule the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf can place a Government Servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is essential. In the instant case and having regard to the grounds attributed against the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings. However, as on date, the stage of the departmental proceeding is not known. The Show Cause Notice that have been earlier issued on 13.11.2015 is perhaps a notice pursuant to the report of the District Development Commissioner, Cachar dated 10.08.2015. 12. I find no reason to interfere with the order of suspension dated 15.02.2016. At this stage Mr. M.K. Choudhury submits that the petitioner will be retiring from service in December, 2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. In that view of the matter it is expected that departmental proceedings, if initiated by now, be brought to an end as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the 3(three) months next. The State Respondent shall also consider, having regard to the fact that the petitioner would be retiring in December, 2016, if there is any scope to invoke sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964. To this end, it will be open for the petitioner to prefer appeal as provided under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules, 1964. 13. In view of the above, I find no reasonable ground to interfere with the order of suspension dated 15.02.2016 and, accordingly, WP(C) 1022/2016 is answered against the petitioner. The other two Writ Petitions i.e. WP(C) 7132/2015 and WP(C) 5869/2015, which pertains to challenge to the transfer orders, shall now stand segregated and be listed separately for Admission. The parties are left to bear their own costs.