IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Prasanta Dutta, Son Of Sri Purna Dutta – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 4 Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 6081 of 2021
Decided on : 07-06-2023
Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 6(1)(c), 14, 9(4), (6) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 201, 204, 420, 418, 468, 471 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66B - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1-B) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 2000 - Section 7(1)(a), 8, 12, 13(1)(a), (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 41(A) - Order of suspension - Disciplinary proceedings are pending - Reinstate into regular service - Petition challenging order of suspension issued and for a direction to reinstate petitioner into regular service immediately – Merely because a disciplinary proceedings are pending, authorities cannot keep delinquent employee under suspension for an indefinite period - Para 70.
Finding of the Court: Respondents while reviewing suspension orders, merely on ground that there is a departmental proceedings pending, period of suspension have been extended from time to time - Respondent authorities have not taken into consideration relevant aspects which have been observed hereinabove - Court therefore is of opinion that as respondent authorities i.e. disciplinary authority has a right to take a decision as to whether in above mentioned parameters, petitioner is required to be kept under suspension or not, an opportunity is therefore required to be given to Respondent Authorities for ends of justice - Court therefore disposes of writ petition with a direction to disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.1 to take a decision by passing a reasoned order on basis of observations so made within a period of 15 days from date of instant judgment.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Dhar, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension issued vide Memo No.HMA.89/2021/50 dated 17.06.2021 and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner into regular service immediately within a such time frame as this Court may deem fit and proper.
3. The facts involved in the instant case is that the petitioner joined the Assam Police in the year 2004 as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the year, 2011 he was promoted to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. Upon his promotion, he was first posted as SSP (Border) at Silchar and thereafter transferred to Dhubri as Additional SP (HQ). It further appears from a perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner was transferred in the Rank of Additional SP from one place to another after his promotion. The last of such transfer was on 24.05.2021 when the petitioner was transferred to 16th AP(IR) Battalion Headquarter as the 2nd in Command. Vide an order bearing No.HMA.89/2021/50 dated 17.06.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned Order”), the petitioner was put under suspension in terms with Rule 6(1)(c) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short “the Rules of 1964”) w.e.f. 17.06.2021.
4. At this stage, it may be relevant to state that in the impugned order, it was mentioned that there was a recommendation received from the Director of General of Police dated 22.05.2021 that the petitioner, the then Additional SP(B) Karimganj, now the 2nd in Command in the 16th AP(IR) Battalion Morigaon in connection with CID PS Case No.21/2020 registered under Sections 120B/409 IPC read with Section 66B I.T. Act added Section 201/204 IPC and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act and Section 7(1)(a)/8/12/13(1)(a)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2000 as amended in 2018 relating to the leakage and circulation of question papers of written examination for the post of SI(UB) of the Police prior to commencement of the examination scheduled on 20.09.2020 which is unbecoming of a Police Officer. It was therefore, on account of the said recommendation, the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. 17.06.2021 pending drawal of the Departmental Proceedings.
5. Before further proceedings, this Court deems it proper to refer certain details pertaining to the CID P.S. Case No.21/2020. It can be seen from the charge sheet which has been enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-2 that the State Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) issued a notification dated 11.04.2018 which was followed by another notification dated 06.11.2019 whereby the advertisement was published seeking online applications from eligible candidates for 597 nos. of posts of SI(UB) in Assam Police. In response to that, 90558 candidates applied for the same. Accordingly, on 02.09.2020, the Board issued notice by fixing the date for written examination on 20.09.2020 and the date of downloading E-Admit Card was fixed w.e.f. 03.09.2020 to 16.09.2020. 66,253 candidates downloaded E-Admit cards for appearing in the written test scheduled to be held on 20.09.2020. It further appears that the question papers of the written test was printed at Arya Printing Press, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and the Board formed a District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) on 14.04.2020 with the Superintendent of Police/Commandants of the nearest APBNs of the concerned districts as the Chairman/Member of the DLSC along with one Medical Officer as Member to be nominated by the Joint Director of the concerned district for conducting smooth recruitment process. For the purpose of conducting the written test of SI(UB), a consortium of 3 (three) numbers of companies namely (i) Kerala State Electronic Development Corporation (KELTRON), (ii) Amain Tech Cons
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and Others reportedin(2006) 8 SCC 200
Rekibuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 2020(2) GauLR 621
State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126
When an administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks conscious of Court in a sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards, power of judicial re....
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry and review is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry or a reasoned order for extension is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
A suspension order must be accompanied by a reasoned order for extension beyond three months if a charge-sheet is served, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
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 p....
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely without justification.
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
Prolonged suspension of an officer requires justification; mere pendency of proceedings is insufficient without adequate reasoning.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.