J. M. Srivastava, J.:-

The petitioner was a lecturer in Madhya Kamrup College, Subha. By order dated 11.6.86 (Annexure-5) on the allegation of violation of examination rules, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 11.6.1986 until further order. The petitioner has continued to be under suspension without any further action, i. e. no disciplinary proceeding has yet been drawn. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this court.

2. We have heard Sri MA. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has been under suspension for more than 35 years and no action has as yet been taken in the matter.

3. Shri H. Roy, learned Government Advocate prays for time to file affidavit in opposition, but the prayer is not accep­ted because sufficient time had been available to the respon­dents to file affidavit-in-opposition.

4. It appears that the respondents have felt that the appointment of the petitioner itself was not in order, because the requisite approval by the Director Public Instruction bad not been accorded. The petitioner's contention however is that appointment was in order.

5. Without entering into that controversy at this stage, we do think that prolonged suspension for more than three years of the petitioner from service without any further action having been taken in the matter, was neither proper nor justified.

6. Suspension from service is a very serious matter and should be for as minimum period as may only be necessary. A prolonged suspension without any justifiable cause is not only wastage of human resources but also of material resoures of the organisation which has to pay the subsistance allowance etc. without any return. We find absolutely no reason to con­tinue the suspension of the petitioner.

7. We, therefore, revoke the impugned suspension of the petitioner from service with immediate effect but make it clear that it shall be open to the respondents to pursue disciplinary action against the petitioner as may be necessary and also the matter relating to the alleged irregular appointment of the peti­tioner. We make no order as to costs. This petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document