A suspension order must not exceed 90 days without initiation of disciplinary proceedings or a reasoned extension order, and the non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. Bendangwabang, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners herein, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Sharma and Mrs. Sarita Devi, who are stated to be husband and wife respectively, are seeking interference with order dated 09.05.2016, suspending the petitioner and also to pay his monthly salary for the period from June 2015 to April 2016, prior to his suspension on 09.05.2016.

3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by purported non payment of subsistence allowance during his period of suspension and for this, he is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance @ 50% from 09.05.2016 to 09.05.2017 and further subsistence allowance @ 75% from 09-05-2017 till order dated 18.07.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 121 of 2023.

4. Before proceeding further, the facts in brief may be noticed. The petitioner No. 1, Anil Sharma, was working as a Carpentry Helper and an employee of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner No.2, Sarita Devi, is stated to be his wife and also an employee of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland. Both of them are stated to be native of Bihar. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 was accused of a murder in FIR No. 0117 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 with regard to which G.R. No. 492 of 2015 was registered and presently stated to be undergoing trial before the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland.

5. It is stated that after submission of final form by the police, proceeding of the case is going on at present. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation for release of salary and subsistence allowance. Based on the same, the respondent No. 5, being the Executive Engineer of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland, by letter No. EE/PWD(H)/ ESTT/Office Order/2015-2016/612-13 dated 23.02.2016, sent a report to respondent No.3, Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Nagaland, asking as to whether the petitioner No. 1 should be terminated from service or whether he should be kept in service.

Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order dated 09.05.2016, placing the petitioner No. 1 under suspension. It is stated that the said order bearing No. CON/ENC/Legal/Gen 49/2015-2016/192 dated 09.05.2016, suspending the petitioner, failed to allow his due entitlements as per law.

6. It is stated and contended by the petitioners that the suspension order dated 09.05.2016 was not reviewed subsequently and the petitioner continued to be in suspension. He was also left unattended by the respondents with regard to wages. He submitted a legal notice dated 26.10.2021 to the respondent No.3 to 5 to clear his pay and other allowances and also be paid subsistence allowances. However, after receiving the legal notice, the respondents made some communications, but they did not address his grievances. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.121 of 2023, but it was withdrawn due to some technicalities, with liberty to file a petition.

7. It is contended that the respondents have not reviewed the suspension order and also not released his entitlem