Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1472 (GAU)

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Assam

2018-10-01

SUMAN SHYAM

body2018
ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the official respondents. 2. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 01.07.2017 while he was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Tinsukia PWD Rural Road Sub-Division, since he was arrested by the Police in connection with CM's Special Vigilance Cell Police Station case No. 6/2017 registered under Section 120B/406/409/468/471/420/511 IPC read with Section 13(2)/15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was later on enlarged on bail granted by the Court of Special Judge. The grievance expressed in this writ petition pertains to the failure on the part of the respondents to revoke the order of suspension even after the lapse of more than one year. 3. Mr. Deka submits that the departmental authorities have neither served any charge memo upon the petitioner nor have they reviewed the order of suspension furnishing any justification for continuance of the order, which clearly goes to show that there is no need to continue with the suspension of the petitioner any further. 4. By referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. A.K. Adhyapak Vs. State of Assam & Ors., rendered in connection with 2019 (1) GLT 804 : WP(C) No. 2863/2018, Mr. Deka submits that the continuance of suspension of the petitioner, at this point of time, is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 5. Mr. Nath, learned State counsel submits that the department is contemplating to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner but he does not deny the assertion that neither any charge memo has been served upon the petitioner nor the order of suspension has been reviewed even after more than a year from the date of suspension. 6. In view of the above and having regard to the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) as well as Dr. 6. In view of the above and having regard to the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) as well as Dr. A.K. Adhyapak (Supra), I am of the view that there is no escape from the conclusion that the continuance of the suspension of the petitioner at this stage, would be in violation of the law. Accordingly, the order dated 01.07.2017 stands set aside with prospective effect. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. 7. It is, however, made clear that this order would not come in the way of the authorities in initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner by following the due process of law. The departmental authorities would also be at liberty to assign appropriate posting to the petitioner on his reinstatement, in the manner as may be deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. There would be no order as to costs.