IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Kakheto Sema, J.

Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Angami, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that, the petitioner while serving as a Jail Warder in the District Jail, Wokha, one under trial prisoner (UTP) namely Yanbemo Mozhui who was lodged at District Jail Wokha in connection with Bdi P.S. Case No. 15/19 u/s 448/307/115/325/326/333/34 IPC, died at the District Civil Hospital, Wokha. In connection with the incident, the Police on 26/12/2019 registered Wokha P.S Case No. 046/19 u/s 325/326/330/302/304(A)/34 IPC and arrested the petitioner and 17 others alleging custodial death.

3. That consequent to the arrest of the petitioner, the Director General of Prison, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule-6 of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, issued the order No. PRI/HQ/ESTT-234/11/661, dated 28/12/2019, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings for violation of section-54 of the Prison Act, 1894.

4. That thereafter, the Additional Director General of Prison, issued the Memorandum No. PRI/HQ/PM-1/2020, dated 17/03/2020 proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule-9(2) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967. By the said Memorandum, the statement of Articles of Charges (Annexure-I), the statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehavior in support of the Articles of Charge (Annexure-II), the list of documents on which the Articles of Charges are proposed to be sustained (Annexure-III) and the list of witnesses by whom the Articles of Charges against the petitioner are proposed to be sustained (Annexure-IV) was also furnished to the petitioner. In the said memorandum, the petitioner was also directed to submit within 10 days a written statement of his defense and to state whether the petitioner also desired to be heard in person.

5. The petitioner accordingly submitted the written statement of his defense dated 26/03/2020 wherein the petitioner denied the allegation leveled against him and requested the authorities to drop the proposed enquiry in the interest of justice.

6. Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dated 28/12/2019 was issued placing the petitioner under suspension and the memorandum dated 17/03/2020 was issued proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner neither any enquiry has been conducted, nor the authorities has reviewed the suspension order as mandated by law. It is submitted that the suspension order should have been reviewed by the competent authority by a reasoned order, within a period not exceeding beyond 3(three) months, for extension of the suspension, after the memorandum dated 17/03/2020 was issued proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner. The authorities, however has not, issued any order reviewing the period for extension of suspension, of the petitioner, despite the lapse of more than 3(three) years from the time the suspension order dated 28/12/2019 was issued, nor has conducted any enquiry after the memorandum of charges dated 17/03/2020 was served on the petitioner and the authorities have continued to keep the petitioner under prolong and indefinite suspension which is neither justified nor legally sustainable. With regard to the Wokha P.S Case No. 046/19, Mr. A. Zho submits that the Police on 23/03/2020 has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and others and the case is presently pending trial and disposal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Wokha. Mr. A. Zho, however submits that the criminal case which is pending trial is not expected to be concluded soon as many of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined by the Court.

7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following cases;

(i). Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India & A