NANTU DAS Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner by this second round of litigation is before this Court with a prayer to declare the continued suspension of the petitioner after 22/11/2025, as illegal, and to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 30/8/2024, whereby the writ petitioner was placed under fresh suspension with immediate effect.

(2.) The brief facts surrounding the case is that the writ petitioner on the allegation of offence of molestation was arrested in connection with the said case and was suspended initially vide an order dtd. 22/11/2023. Aggrieved by the prolonged suspension and the suspension order not being reviewed, within a period of 90 days as provided under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the writ petitioner had approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 129 of 2024. The writ petition was then allowed by an order dtd. 16/7/2024, with directions to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, though not precluding the respondents taking further action under Rules 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Thereafter, it appears that an enquiry had been conducted by the ICC, wherein by its report dtd. 5/8/2024, a prima facie case was made out against the writ petitioner. On this development the respondents by the impugned order dtd. 30/8/2024, placed the petitioner under fresh suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules.

(3.) Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by operation of the Rule 10 (6) and 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a suspension order shall be reviewed by the competent authority to either modify or revoke the suspension before the expiry of 90 days, from the effective date of suspension, and if no review is taken the same would not be valid after a period of 90 days, unless extended. He further submits that as the fresh suspension order has been issued on 30/8/2024, the same would have lapsed on 28/11/2024 but till date there has been no review of the suspension order.