AJOY CH. DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has raised his serious grievance for non-completion of the departmental proceeding even after lapse of almost 12(twelve) years and for non-granting of suspension allowance for the period he was put under suspension.

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner while discharging his service to the respondents was put under suspension by order dtd. 30/4/2007 in contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner has stated that the period of 90 days after the said order was expired on 29/7/2007. Even after expiry of the period of 90 days, there was no review of the necessity of the continuation of the suspension order, even no review committee was constituted to examine the need of continuation of the order of suspension. However, the suspension order was revoked on 2/11/2009.