JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, although it may be a final order in the writ petition, we do not deem it appropriate to issue notices to the respondent No. 4 Ms. Santana Ghosh and respondent No. 6 Mr. Anup Narayan Ghosh.

3. The respondent No. 4 had lodged a written complaint under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short, the Act of 2013), against the petitioner and the said written complaint had resulted in a proceeding under the Act, which is continuing, and in this writ petition the Court is not required to go into the question of the legality and validity of such proceeding. Alternatively, an independent disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, purportedly on the same cause of action, wherein an order of suspension was also passed against the petitioner. The independent disciplinary proceeding and the order of suspension are assailed in this petition, which pertains to the service conditions of the petitioner, and therefore the complainant in a sexual harassment proceeding, which otherwise is continuing as per law, is neither a necessary party, nor is required to be heard, in the proceeding pertaining to the service conditions simplicitor in respect of the petitioner.

Further no ground of mala fide against the respondent No. 6 is urged upon in the writ petition, and therefore the respondent concerned need not be arrayed in person.

4. The petitioner is presently serving as a Chief Administrative Officer in the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (in short MACT), Dhubri and the respondent No. 4 Ms. Santana Ghosh is also an employee of the MACT, Dhubri and in the hierarchy of the staff in the office of the MACT, Dhubri, it is stated that the respondent No. 4 is subordinate to the petitioner. The dispute raised in this writ petition arose from a complaint lodged by the respondent No. 4 Ms. Santana Ghosh dated 16.12.2019 under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. The copies of such complaint were also marked towards the other superior officers in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri and other relevant superior authorities. In the process, a regular explanation was called for from the petitioner by the respondent No.5 being the District Gender Sensitization & Internal Committee, Dhubri in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri which is represented by its Member Secretary. When such explanation was called for from the petitioner, the petitioner was also placed under suspension as per the order dated 13.02.2020 of the Presiding Officer/Member MACT, Dhubri.

5. The order of suspension of 13.02.2020 reads that pending departmental proceeding the petitioner is placed under suspension with immediate effect. In the meantime a show cause notice dated 13.02.2020 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short, the Rules of 1964) was also served on the petitioner. We have also taken note that in response to the explanation called for from the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted his reply.

6. In this writ petition, the core grievance raised by the petitioner is against the order of suspension dated 13.02.2020 and the show cause notice under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. Although certain averments have also been made as regards the veracity and correctness of the allegation raised in the complaint under Section 9 of the Act of 2013, but such contention has not been urged upon in this writ petition. We also clarify that the correctness and veracity of the allegation made in the complaint petition would be within the domain of the Internal Committee to go into, rather than it being adjudicated in any manner in a writ petition.

7. From the said point of view, we