The power to suspend a government servant should not be exercised in a mechanical or routine manner, and the court should not interfere with the order of suspension unless it is mala fide and without prima facie evidence connecting the employee with the alleged misconduct.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The writ petitioner in the present Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner, and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department suspending the petitioner from service by invoking power under Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

2. I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. P. Barman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing counsel for the P.W.D.

3. The writ petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension dated 26.7.2004 on the ground that the authority has not exercised the power under Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules bona fide and keeping in view the allegation on which the writ petitioner was suspended from service, there was no necessity for placing him under suspension as according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the power of suspension cannot be exercised in an administrative routine manner and the authority before passing an order of suspension is required to take into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be investigated or enquired into as well as the nature of evidence placed before him. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order of suspension was passed in a most mechanical way without taking into consideration the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The further submission of Mr. Pathak is that the petitioner was suspended from service on the ground of his absence from duty, although he was regularly attending his office and even assuming he was not present in the site, the same in any case cannot be considered a grave misconduct even if it is proved in the disciplinary proceeding. The charges being not grave and there being no chance of interfering with the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against the petitioner, there was no necessity to place the officer under suspension. Mr. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel has also submitted that though the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 26.7.2004, no show cause notice has been served on him till date and hence the disciplinary proceedings has not commenced in spite of expiry of more than four months from the date of placing the petitioner under suspension. Mr. Pathak has referred to the Government circular whereby it has been directed that the disciplinary proceeding has to be initiated within six months from the date of putting the officer under suspension. Hence, Mr. Pathak has prayed for setting aside of the order of suspension dated 26.7.2004 Mr. Pathak, in support of his contention, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v.Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in (1995) I LLJ 568 SC.

4. Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing counsel for the P.W.D. relying on the record produced before me as well as the statements made in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, has submitted that the petitioner was suspended from service since he was found absent from duty from 9.7.2004 to 22.7.2004 when the flood waters have submerged and damaged the National Highways and disrupted the traffic flow. The services of writ petitioner as Superintending Engineer of P.W.D. during the flood days are always most essential but since the petitioner did not care to respond to the most critical situation arising out of flood and neglected his duties by keeping himself absent from the Headquarter, the authority has to put the petitioner under suspension by issuing the order of suspension. Mr. Roy has further submitted that infact the charge sheet has been issued on 30.11.2004 thereby initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Roy submits that this Court may not interfere with the order of suspension dated 26.7.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority although he is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.2005. Mr. Roy has, in support of his contention th