Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 212 (GAU)

JAITUN NESSA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-02-17

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
1. Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 whereas Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the writ petitioner was placed under suspension following her arrest made in connection with Tarabari Police Station Case No.47/2016, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 3. Dr. Ahmed submits that the alleged offence, in connection with which the criminal proceeding has been initiated against her has got no connection with the official duty of the petitioner. By referring to Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, Dr. Ahmed submits that in a case where the detention in the police custody is made on account of a charge not connected with the decision taken by a government servant, in discharge of official duty, the power of suspension under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964 cannot at all be invoked by the authorities. However, ignoring the said provisions, submits Dr. Ahmed, the order of suspension made against the writ petitioner has been continued since 21.06.2016 to her prejudice. 4. By referring to another recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 Dr. Ahmed submits that in the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that continuance of the order of suspension for long period of time is not in the interest of either the employee or the employer. 5. By the order dated 09.01.2017 the learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, was required to obtain instruction in the matter. However, today when the matter is called up, Mr. Borah, learned departmental counsel, submits that no instruction has been received by him in this case. 5. By the order dated 09.01.2017 the learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, was required to obtain instruction in the matter. However, today when the matter is called up, Mr. Borah, learned departmental counsel, submits that no instruction has been received by him in this case. In view of the above and considering the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, I am of the view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending before this Court, the proper course of action would be to permit the writ petitioner to file appropriate representation before the respondent No.2 i.e. her appointing authority, seeking review of the order of suspension on such grounds that may be available to her under the law. 6. As such, this writ petition is disposed of directing the writ petitioner to make appropriate representation before the respondent No.2. If the representation, as permitted by this Court, is made within a period of 10 (ten) days from today, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.2 on its own merit and dispose of the same within a further period of four weeks by issuing a speaking order. If the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved even thereafter, she will be at liberty to approach this Court once again. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of.