Prolonged suspension of a government employee requires adequate justification, especially when delays in departmental proceedings are not attributable to the employee.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. AK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the GMC).

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2022, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.11.2022 as well as the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Commissioner, GMC, whereby the petitioner’s suspension stood extended until further orders. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and he was placed under suspension with effect from 18.11.2022 pursuant to his arrest 15.11.2022 in connection with Vigilance Police Station Case No. 04/2022 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/409/468/471 IPC read with Section 13 (1)(a)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. Subsequently, he was granted bail on 16.12.2022 by this Hon’ble Court. From the pleadings available on record, it is seen that the charge-sheet in the criminal proceedings was filed on 11.01.2023. The criminal proceedings are pending disposal before the competent Court of Jurisdiction. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 29.12.2022 by the Department, to which he filed a reply on 06.01.2023 denying all the charges. Since the suspension was not withdrawn, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2888/2023 on the ground that no review for extension was made after expiry of 90 (ninety) days and which is a violation of the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. The Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . This Court by order dated 24.05.2023 disposed of the said writ petition, however, declined to interfere with the suspension order passed by the Authority. However, the Court directed the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order within 15 (fifteen) days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Commissioner, GMC. In deference to the direction passed by the Court in WP(C) No. 2888/2023, the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 was passed, whereby the suspension of the petitioner stood extended.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for a period of almost 3 (three) years. Although the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated, however, pursuant to issuance of the memo of charges to which the writ petitioner filed a reply, the Disciplinary Proceedings have not progressed any further. Learned counsel or the petitioner submits that the proceedings have not progressed as all relevant records and files, on the basis of which the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, are under the custody of the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, Guwahati. There is no response received from the investigating authority as to when the files would be returned back and as a consequence thereof, there is a complete uncertainty with regard to the progress of the Disciplinary Proceedings. It is submitted that when the Departmental Proceedings have not progressed against the petitioner, and the relevant records and files are under the custody of the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell, Guwahati, the prolonged suspension of the petitioner is totally unwarranted and therefore, the same should be set aside and interfered with. It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench by order date