Gauhati High Court
Bachan Singh vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 1 April, 2022
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010103672021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3360/2021
BACHAN SINGH
S/O- LT. BIRBAL SINGH, R/O- APTC, DERGAON, TRAINING COMPLEX, P.S.-
DERGAON, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
TO BE REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE HOME AND POLITICAL
DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6, ASSAM
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME (A) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
3:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
ULUBARI
GHY-7
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
01.04.2022 Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner's case is that he has been placed under suspension vide order dated 03.12.2020 w.e.f. 14.10.2020. The review of the petitioner's suspension order for extension of the same was done only on 28.12.2021, i.e. after more than a year. Further, even the extension of the suspension period has not been further extended as on date. He accordingly submits that the suspension order dated 03.12.2020 should be set aside.
3. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the review proceedings regarding extension of the petitioner's suspension order is under process with the Departmental Review Committee.
4. In the case of State of Assam and Others vs. Mrigen Haloi (WA 28/2021), the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 has held that the continued suspension of an employee could not be sustained since review was not held within 90 (ninety) days, but after 145 (one hundred forty five) days. In the present case, the review was held after more than a year. Further, Page No.# 3/3 the counsel for the respondents has not been able to produce any order showing that there has been a further extension of the suspension order, subsequent to the extension made on 28.12.2021.
5. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in WA 28/2021, the continued suspension of the petitioner is not sustainable. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 03.12.2020 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner, with liberty being given to post/transfer the petitioner to any of its office so that he cannot have any opportunity to do any act which may hamper the departmental proceeding.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant