Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said period of 3(three) months

JUDGMENT :

The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the action of the respondent authorities in keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension from service. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 07.11.2017 and the first review of the suspension was done after nine months, that too, after an order of intervention by this Court. Subsequently, after more than a year the show cause notice was issued which was replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter even after expiry of almost four years, nothing has been done and the petitioner continues to be in the state of suspension.

2. To appreciate the issue involve in this case, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are stated in brief.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Divisional Information Officer in the Department of Information and Public Relation in the year, 1987. Subsequently, upon a recommendation of the APSC, he was appointed as Director, Information and Public Relation, Assam vide an order dated 30.05.2011.

4. It appears that an FIR was lodged by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell on 20.10.2017 on the basis of a regular enquiry. The FIR was in connection with allegation of misappropriation in the form of false/fraudulent claims made by Media Buying Firms in respect of hoardings and making payments thereof on the part of the Director without proper verification. Allegations are also there of manipulation by the petitioner in collusion with the Media Buying Firms involved in the project “Vision Assam Mission Assam.” The aforesaid case was registered as CM Special Vigilance Cell Police Station Case No. 8/2017 under Section 120(B)/468/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was summoned by the police on 07.11.2017 and when he had appeared, he was detained. The petitioner claims that after his arrest he was sent to judicial custody and was granted bail by this Court, vide an order dated 16.03.2018. In the meantime, vide a notification dated 14.11.2017 by invoking Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called, the Rules), the petitioner was put under suspension. However, the petitioner claimed that neither any memorandum of charges was served nor any review of the suspension order was done. The petitioner claimed to have submitted various representations which were not acted upon leading him to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C)/7047/2018.

6. The aforesaid writ petition WP(C)/7047/2018 was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 30.10.2018 by directing the respondents to undertake an exercise on the desirability to continue to the order of suspension.

7. Subsequently, on 12.10.2018 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 which was after about 11 months from the date of suspension. Further, in compliance with the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition an order was passed on 15.12.2018 whereby the suspension was said to be reviewed and it was decided to continue with the same. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority issued another show cause notice dated 17.11.2018 to the petitioner whereby the earlier show cause notice dated 12.10.2018 was cancelled. The petitioner claims that the charges in both the notices are completely different.

8. Thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 12.03.2019, 27.08.2019, 26.11.2019, 05.06.2020 and 05.09.2020 the order of suspension has been reviewed and it was decided to keep the petitioner under suspension.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that though subsequent orders of review have been passed from time to time, none of the orders were passed within the prescribed period and appears