Expedition in the investigative process and the potential adverse impact of prolonged suspension on the employee are crucial factors in determining the validity of a suspension order.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.02.2000, issued by the authorities of the C.K.B. College, Teok, Jorhat, (hereinafter referred to as the College), placing him under suspension and the approval thereof, by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, vide communication dated 21.06.2000.

2. I have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Thomas, learned standing counsel, Education Department.

3. The facts in bare essential necessary for disposal of the petition are that the Petitioner while serving as Upper Division Assistant (Accountant) in the College, was arrested by the CM's Vigilance Cell, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 of 1999 under Section 120(B)/420/409 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was produced before the Court of Special Judge, Guwahati and thereafter enlarged on bail on 03.02.2000. Following this, he was placed under suspension with effect from 28.01.2000, by the impugned communication dated 17.02.2000. The decision was approved by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, vide communication dated 21.6.2000. According to the Petitioner, till date neither any memorandum of charges has been served on him, nor he has been notified about the trial in the criminal case. He is, therefore, before this Court, contending that the order of suspension needs to be quashed, in view of the undue and unexplained delay resulting in serious prejudice to him.

4. The Director of Higher Education, Assam Respondent No. 2, in his counter has confirmed the fact of the Petitioner's arrest in the aforementioned Vigilance P.S. Case. The charges against the Petitioner have been recited as follows:

(a) Non-deposition of provident Fund money in the post Officer, which was deducted from the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff.

(b) Drawing of salaries of two Lecturers from 22 months who were not actually appointed but only prior approval were taken from the Director of Higher Education.

(c) Drawing of salary in the name of Late Prafulla Bharma (IVth Grade) after his death for about two and half years.

5. According to him, following the suspension of the Petitioner, the College authority constituted a two men Inquiry Committee to explore the necessity of initiating a departmental proceeding against him. The Inquiry Committee accordingly, submitted its report on 22.05.2000. The official Respondent has asserted that the investigation in the Vigilance P.S. case is pending for non receipt of the death certificate of Dugdha Nath Sarma, Ex-Principal of College and that on receipt thereof, charge sheet would be submitted in the case.

6. Mr. Choudhury, has assertively argued that the Petitioner's suspension in the attending facts and circumstances is penal in nature and as the Respondent authorities have failed to either complete the investigation of the police case or initiate a departmental proceeding against him, in the meantime, it is a fit case where this Court would intervene and quash the order of suspension. The purported ground for the delay as offered by the Respondent No. 2, being untenable, the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus, directing his reinstatement, he urged. In support of his submissions Mr. Choudhury, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and other v. M.V. Valiappan and other (1999) 6 SCC 259 and of this Court in Lalit Basumatary v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2003) 1 GLT 90 and Jahirul Haque Choudhury v. State of Assam (1993) 1 GLR 207.

7. Mr. Thomas, in reply has submitted that as the charges against the Petitioner are serious and the investigation of the vigilance case is nearing completion, no interference is called for. According to him, as the order of suspension has been passed mainly due to the Petitioner's involvement in the criminal case and his detention in connection therewith, mere delay cannot be a ground for revocation of t