JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as for the applicant. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department, who appears for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned State counsel, appears for the respondent nos. 6 and 7. Considering the issue involved, I am of the considered view that instead of considering the interlocutory application, the writ petition itself should be disposed of. The learned counsels appearing for the rival parties also do not have any objection. 2. The petitioner is serving as Junior Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies and in course of such employment, he also discharged responsibility of the Secretary of Dhemaji Samabay Samiti Ltd. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred at his own request from Dhemaji to Hilakandi. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 01.06. 2015. 3. Prior to his suspension, the petitioner was given a show cause notice vide communication dated 14.06.2013 (annexure-VIII) wherein he was asked to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with article 311 of the constitution on the following two charges: “Charge No.1: that while you were serving as Jr. Inspector/Auditor of cooperative societies cum Secretary of Dhemaji S.S. Ltd. You remained absent from the Head Quarter since November/2012 without obtaining prior permission from your controlling officer. It is reported by the Assistant Registrar of cooperative Societies, Dhemaji vide WT Message dated 10/04/2013, that Sri Tashil Patir, Sr. Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies that supervision officer could not physically verify the Stocks, Books and Accounts of the Society (of which you are the Secretary) as on 31/03/2013 as required under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act/2007 as you are found to be absent. You are, therefore, charged with wilful violation of Govt. rules, dereliction of duty and non compliance of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act/2007. Charge No.2: That while you were serving as Jr. Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies cum Secretary of Dhemaji S.S. Ltd., the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhemaji had directed you to hand over the charge of the Secretary of Dhemaji S.S. Ltd. To Sri Harendra Chutia vide letter No. CLD (CC) 984/2008/326, dated 01/01/2013 in connection with order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 5179/2012. Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies cum Secretary of Dhemaji S.S. Ltd., the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhemaji had directed you to hand over the charge of the Secretary of Dhemaji S.S. Ltd. To Sri Harendra Chutia vide letter No. CLD (CC) 984/2008/326, dated 01/01/2013 in connection with order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 5179/2012. But it is reported that you have not handed over the charges of books and records of the Dhemaji S.S. Ltd. to Sri Harendra Chutia, thereby failing to comply the order of the Assistant Registrar of cooperative Societies, Dhemaji as mentioned above”. 4. Against the show cause notice on the two charges abstracted above, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 26.07.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was given another show cause notice by the registrar of Cooperative Societies on 27.02.2015 (annexure-XII) wherein three charges were made against him. The first two charges were identical to the charge made against him vide communication dated 14.06.2013. As for the third charge, the same may be abstracted below for ready perusal : “Charge No3: That you were nominated to undergo training course on Higher Diploma in cooperative Management at ICM, Guwahati from 23/07/2013 to 31/01/2014. But after the expiry of training course, you have not joined in your duty till date as informed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhemaji by W.T. Message”. 5. The petitioner against the show cause notice dated 27.02.2015, also submitted his show cause reply to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 13.07.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 02.06.2015 as mentioned earlier. 6. The petitioner, thereafter remained under suspension and that the departmental proceeding having not progressed, he submitted an application seeking vacation of his suspension order to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 10.03.2017 (annexure-XV). As his application for vacation of the suspension order was not considered by the authority concerned, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6149/2017. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2017 with direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh copy of the representation along with a copy of the Court’s order to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies who was also directed to dispose of the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2017 with direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh copy of the representation along with a copy of the Court’s order to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies who was also directed to dispose of the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 05.10.2017 (annexure-XVIII), praying for vacation of his suspension order. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies thereafter, vide order dated 17.02.2018 passed the following order: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM : KHANAPARA:GUWAHATI No CE 45/2013/176 Dated 17th February/2018 ORDER The Hon’ble High Court as per order dated 22-09-2017 passed in WP (C) 6149/2017 (Rekubur Rahman Vs State of Assam and four others) has been pleased to directed the petitioner o submit a fresh copy of his representation, along with a certified copy of the order to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam and thus the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was directed to dispose of the representation within a period of four weeks there from. Seen on office record that vide no. CE 45/2013/73 Dated 6-4-2015, the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued show cause to Rekibur Rahman Junior Inspector/Auditor, Hailakandi on four charges related to dereliction of duties and charged with wilful disobedience negligence and insubordination. Rekibur Rahman submitted his replies parawise on 13th July 2015. Vide order no. CE 45/2013/91 Dated 22-12-2015, Rekibur Rahman was allowed to draw subsistence allowance at 75%. Subsequently, vide order no. CE 45/2013/92 Dated 25-01-2016, A.K. Baishya, Joint Registrar of cooperative Societies (HQ) was appointed as the enquiry officer under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964. The enquiry officer conducted hearing on 11-3-2016 at 11 am, where in addition to Rekibur Rahman, K. Deuri (ARCS Dhemaji) Ranjan Kumband (Supervisor of Dhemaji SS Ltd), Tahsil Ch. Patir (Sr. Inspector), and Haren Chutia (Ex Secretary of Dhemaji SS ltd) were present. Sr. Inspector Deepak Mandal was made the presenting officer. Along with others, Rekibur Rahman deposed before the enquiry officer on 23-5-2016. Patir (Sr. Inspector), and Haren Chutia (Ex Secretary of Dhemaji SS ltd) were present. Sr. Inspector Deepak Mandal was made the presenting officer. Along with others, Rekibur Rahman deposed before the enquiry officer on 23-5-2016. The findings of the enquiry dated 16-8-2016 revealed that in three out of four charges, he was found guilty one even of defiance of order of Hon High Court in WP(C) 5179/2012 by not handing over charges as Secretary of the Dhemaji SS ltd to Haren Chutia. Rekibur Rahman was transferred from Dhemaji to Hilakandi by the then RCS vide no CE 55/2013/47 dated 28-05-2014. It is also seen on record that the Deputy Commissioner of Dhemaji instituted an enquiry separately through the ARCS Dhemaji and ADS, FCS & CA Dhemaji against Rekibur Rahman for anomalies and corruption on the basis of complaints filed by Mukul Gogoi, Secretary Dhemaji SS ltd and four others. Vide order No. CE 45/2013/140 dated 11-08-2017, the allegation against Rekibur Rahman received from Mukut Gogoi, Secretary of Dhemaji SS Ltd dated 24-04-2017, (which are the same allegations for which Rekibur Rahman approached the Hon High Court), where sent to B.K. Agarwalla, Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tezpur for conducting an enquiry and submission of report within three weeks positively. The Zonal Joint Registrar completed the enquiry after recording statements of the parties to the dispute including Rekibur Rahman. Rekibur Rahman deposed before the enquiry officer on 4-12-2017 and admitted having taken Rs. 4,80,000/-. The ZJRCS in his report vide no. ZJRCS 7/2017/18 dated 5-12-2017 states that the Balance sheet of Dhemaji SS ltd shows that Rs 5,78,965.94/- is recoverable from Rekibur Rahman, during his tenure as Secretary of the Coop. Society. This includes the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- received by him as Secretary of the Society, which he acknowledged through a receipt dated 11-10-12. In the enquiry, he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. He could not prove that the amount of Rs. 5,78,965.94/- is not recoverable from him. The other amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- has been considered by the enquiry officer to be taken by him as personal loan from Mukut Gogoi, then Asst Secretary which, as per findings, have not been returned. Considering the enquiry report, Rekibur Rahman is hereby asked to deposit Rs. 5,78,965.94/- with the Dhemaji Samabay Samiti ltd within one month positively. The other amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- has been considered by the enquiry officer to be taken by him as personal loan from Mukut Gogoi, then Asst Secretary which, as per findings, have not been returned. Considering the enquiry report, Rekibur Rahman is hereby asked to deposit Rs. 5,78,965.94/- with the Dhemaji Samabay Samiti ltd within one month positively. As the matter relates to PDS where offences are taken cognizance under Sec 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and under provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the relevant bondings and documents are to be handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of Dhemaji for necessary penal Action. Meanwhile, Rekibur Rahman is reinstated in service with immediate effect subject to refund of the aforesaid amount to the cooperative Society as hereby directed. The DP drawn against him is accordingly disposed of without prejudice to the action that may ensue against him under the NFSA and EC Act and rules etc. (R.K. Mazumder) Registrar of Cooperative Societies Assam Dated 17th February 2018 Memo no CE 45/2013/176-A” 7. Appearing for the writ petitioner Mr. S. Borthakur the learned counsel submits that in terms of the representation submitted by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondent no. 3 to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner for vacation of the suspension order but however, the respondent no. 3 instead issued a conditional order for reinstating the petitioner. He submits that by the impugned order dated 17.02.2018, the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,78,965.94/- with the Dhemaji Samabay Samiti Ltd, within a period of one month and that his reinstatement was made subject to him making such deposit. He further submits that the respondent no. 3 by the impugned order dated 17.02.2018 also closed the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner. However, without prejudice to the action that may be taken against him under the National Food Activity Act and the Essential Commodities Act and Rules. He submits that without following due process of departmental proceeding, the respondent no. 3 could not have asked petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount as a condition for his reinstatement. Although the petitioner had represented for his reinstatement due to his prolong suspension. Thus, under the given circumstances, he submits that Court may direct the respondent no. He submits that without following due process of departmental proceeding, the respondent no. 3 could not have asked petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount as a condition for his reinstatement. Although the petitioner had represented for his reinstatement due to his prolong suspension. Thus, under the given circumstances, he submits that Court may direct the respondent no. 3 to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2018. 8. Dr B. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the Cooperation Department submits that the respondent no. 3 is responsible in looking after the welfare of the Cooperative Societies and since, the amount of Rs. 5,78,965.94/- was found to be due from the petitioner to be paid to the society concerned from the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was only asked to return the amount and that the same is not a condition for his reinstatement. He further submits that the order impugned by the writ petitioner is not an order of punishment and not an order passed under the Assam Disciplinary Rules. It was passed only in terms of the direction passed by this Court and as per the representation that was submitted by the petitioner himself. Despite the order dated 17.02.2018 the petitioner failed to join his post. Under, the circumstance, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available in record. As may be noticed from the two charges issued to the petition vide show cause notice dated 14.06.2013, and the three charge also issued to him vide show cause notice dated 27.02.2015 as abstracted above, there is no charge against the writ petitioner in so far as any recoverable amount of money is concerned. The first charge is with regard to unauthorised absence and the second charge is for having failed to comply with the order of superior officers. The third charge is with regard to in-subordination and violation of rules. As may further be noticed from the application for vacation of the suspension order submitted by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner on account of prolonged suspension sought for his reinstatement into service. However, the respondent no. The third charge is with regard to in-subordination and violation of rules. As may further be noticed from the application for vacation of the suspension order submitted by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner on account of prolonged suspension sought for his reinstatement into service. However, the respondent no. 3 in passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2018 has taken into account certain allegation which apparently are beyond the charge given in the show cause notice and at the same time has directed the reinstatement of the petitioner subject to refund of the amount indicated in the impugned order. On such reinstatement, the departmental proceeding that was drawn against the petitioner was also disposed of. The respondent no. 3 in passing the impugned order dated 17.02.2018, in my considered opinion acted beyond the terms of reference on the subject of reinstatement as sought by the writ petitioner. No doubt the authority concerned after following appropriate procedure would be justified in passing an order of recovery but from the materials available on record, no disciplinary proceeding in so far as the recovery of any amount from the writ petitioner can be seen. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.02.2018 cannot be sustainable in law. In the result, the order dated 17.02.2018 is hereby set aside. 10. The respondent no. 3 shall now consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 5.10.2017 afresh and decide as to whether the petitioner should be further kept under suspension pending finalisation of departmental proceeding or whether he should be reinstated into service. It is decided that the petitioner should further be kept under suspension, the respondent authority concerned shall pay the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner including the amount at increased rate under the rules till he is reinstated or an appropriate decision taken. The consideration of the representation of the writ petitioner should complete within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel submits that the respondent no. 3 may not be precluded from making the recovery as may be required from the writ petitioner since some amount of money is pending against him. 11. Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel submits that the respondent no. 3 may not be precluded from making the recovery as may be required from the writ petitioner since some amount of money is pending against him. My considered opinion to this submission is that such observation is not necessary since the same is not a part of the charge in the show cause notice and it is always open to the parties concerned to initiate recovery process as may be permissible under law. 12. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.