TEIBORLANG SUNN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner a Junior Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, (Electrical) P.H.E. Government of Meghalaya was placed under suspension on 12th March, 2013 on the ground of his being implicated in Mawlai P.S. Case No. 18 (3) 2013 U/S 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Section 364 I.P.C. and departmental proceedings were contemplated to be initiated against him. However, since 12th March, 2013 no departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had filed several representations for lifting the suspension order, however, with no result. Being aggrieved with the unduly prolonged period of suspension, the petitioner is before this court by way of the instant writ petition.

(2.) Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. V. Mawlieh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the ground for suspension was with regard to his involvement in Mawlai P.S. Case No. 18 (3) 2013 U/S 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Section 364 I.P.C. Consequent to the F.I.R. a charge sheet was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 23rd May, 2013 and the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 17 of the POCSO Act which is for abetment.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the main and primary accused who was charge sheeted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act was also suspended during his period of custody but was subsequently reinstated thereafter. He further submits that however in the case of the petitioner, though he was charge sheeted with a lesser offence, he is still under suspension till date. He submits that no review of his suspension, has been carried out by the respondents, as provided under FR 51 clause (2) (b) clause (ii) (c) and also submits that, Rule 6 sub-rule (2) and the proviso to sub-rule (2) of the Meghalaya Services (Discipline and Appeal) 2011 does not mandate such a prolonged suspension. He further submits that there was no Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner except for an enquiry, which in his submission does not qualify as a Departmental Enquiry, and that the fact that no Departmental Proceeding was ever initiated against the writ petitioner is substantiated by the affidavit of the respondents at Para-10. He also submits that, in fact the State respondents themselves had made a request to the Government for lifting of the suspension order.