Ujjal Bhuyan, J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Mr. A. Chetri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance (Establishment-B) Department placing the petitioner under suspension.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he had entered into service under the Govt. of Assam in the year 1979 as Junior Accounts' Officer. Thereafter on being recommended by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), petitioner joined the Assam Financial Service. In the course of his long service career spanning about 36 years, petitioner had risen through the ranks and ultimately was appointed as Director of Pensions, Assam.

4. Office of the petitioner i.e., Directorate of Pension is situated in the 6th floor of a building called Housefed Complex. Most of the visitors to the office of the petitioner are pensioners above 60 years of age.

5. On 04.12.2015 some journalists had visited the office of the petitioner and had interviewed many people. When the petitioner was approached he did not give any interview but only said that there were two lifts to the office, out of which one always remained non-functional which caused inconvenience to the visitors who are mostly elderly pensioners. According to the petitioner, he had only expressed the view that if the Hon'ble Chief Minister would have known about the condition of the lifts those would have been restored immediately.

6. It appears that the journalists had aired a news item in some TV channels regarding functioning of the Directorate of Pension and also published it as a news item in the daily newspaper "Niyomia Barta" in its issue dated 05.12.2015.

7. Thereafter the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 was issued placing the petitioner under suspension. It stated that it appeared from the print media and news dated 05.12.2015 that petitioner had made some derogatory remarks against the Hon'ble Chief Minister, thus violating the rules of the Government.

8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

9. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no justification at all for placing the petitioner under suspension. Petitioner had not made any derogatory remarks against the Hon'ble Chief Minister. He had not acted in any irresponsible manner or in any manner in violation of the conduct rules. Respondents did not make any endeavour to verify as to whether petitioner had really uttered any derogatory remarks against the Hon'ble Chief Minister. In such circumstances, suspension of the petitioner is not justified. Further submission is that petitioner is retiring on attaining the age of superannuation today i.e. 31.03.2016. At the fag end of his service career, suspending him clearly amounts to a punitive action on the part of the respondents.

10. On 04.01.2016, this Court had issued notice and had directed learned State Counsel to produce the relevant file before the Court leading to issuance of the impugned order. Though time was sought for and granted, respondents had neither filed affidavit nor produced the record. Ultimately on 29.03.2016, this Court directed learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department to produce the relevant file today with the observation that in case the file was not produced, Court may proceed with the case on the basis of available materials.

11. Today, when the matter is called upon, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has produced the relevant file. However, no affidavit has been filed.

12. On a perusal of the file, it is seen that as per verbal order of the Commissioner and Secretary, Pension and Public Grievances Department, copy of the news i