JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Assailing the order of suspension dated 19.5.2020 and praying for his reinstatement, the petitioner, who was then posted as Head Assistant in service in the office of the respondent No. 5, has filed this writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in the writ petition and has stated that by the impugned order dated 19.5.2020, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley Zone, Silchar (respondent No. 3) had suspended the petitioner on the ground on negligence of duty, misuse of official power, etc. This was followed by serving a show-cause notice dated 20.5.2020 to which the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 30.6.2020. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 issued a second show-cause notice dated 14.9.2020 on the petitioner. It is further submitted that in their affidavit-in-opposition although the respondents had portray existence of many complaints and adverse orders, the impugned suspension order dated 19.5.2020 is continuing to operate against the petitioner without any re view and without drawing/initiating departmental proceeding. It is also submitted that although the respondents have annexed copy of speaking order dated 14.8.2020, 30.9.2020 and 20.11.2020 as Annexures Z1, Z2 and 23 to the affidavit-in-opposition, the copy of the said three annexures was never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel has relied on the following cases : (1) Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, (2) Atfur Rahman v. State of Assam, (2019) 6 Gau LR 460.

4. Per contra, the learned departmental counsel has submitted that in the present occasion, the petitioner has been suspended for the third time. He was first suspended on 31.10.2000, thereafter he was suspended : on 24.7.2013 and the third suspension order was passed on 19.5.2020. It is also submitted that in Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition a chronological list of 27 serious complaints against the petitioner including the three suspension orders and the supporting documents has also been annexed. It is submitted that on a previous occasion vide office order No. DP-1 dated 30.5.2015, the petitioner was imposed the following penalties as per rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, viz., (1) withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, (2) censure with warning that he will not repeat such behaviour as alleged with the authority in future. Accordingly, it is submitted that in his opinion, the petitioner is incorrigible. It is further submitted that show-cause notice has been issued upon respondent No. 3 on 20.5.2020 (Annexure-3) of the writ petition, which was served to the petitioner on 21.5.2020. However, the petitioner did not submit his reply on time and it was belatedly submitted on 30.6.2020. It is submitted that though the petitioner was allowed time to inspect the documents, but he had not done so, which is contrary to the para 7 of this writ petition. It is also submitted that the statement made in para-8 of the writ petition that the petitioner submitted show-cause reply dated 30.5.2020 is a false statement and the said false statement is evident from show-cause reply dated 30.6.2020 (Annexure-8) to the affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that the suspension order dated 19.5.2020 is followed by speaking orders dated 14.8.2020, 30.9.2020 and 20.11.2020 as on 29.1.2021, the date of filing the affidavit-in-opposition. It is submitted that in connection with the suspension order dated 19.5.2020, Enquiry Committee was instituted by order No. 5 of 2020-21, dated 21