KANIKA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. CHAIRMAN NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had been appointed as a Community Organiser under the Notified Area Council, Kuchinda since October 10, 1986 and she was placed under suspension by the order of the Chairman of the N. A. C. dt. August 10, 1989 annexed as Annexure-5. After her suspension she was paid subsistence allowance till July, 1990 and thereafter as no subsistence allowance was paid and no definite charges were framed the petitioner approached this Court, on April 17, 1992. The petitioner prays that since no definite charges have been framed against her the order of suspension may be quashed and she may be paid the leave salary and subsistence allowance for the period in question. Pursuant to the notice issued from this Court a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 which has been sworn to by the Executive Officer of the N. A. C. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Chairman dated December 30, 1989 but the said order could not be communicated as the petitioner was not available at the headquarters which was fixed at Kuchinda. Later on, the Chairman came to the conclusion that the order of termination is illegal as no departmental proceeding had been initiated and therefore, he recalled the said order directing for continuance of the departmental proceeding and pursuant to the said order a set of charges have been framed on August 10, 1992. It has further been stated that though the same charge sheet containing charges was been sent by the registered post and through special messenger but the registered letter was returned with the endorsement that the petitioner is not available at the headquarters which has been fixed in the order of suspension and she is staying somewhere else. On this score it is the petitioner who is responsible for all these delay in continuance of the departmental proceeding. Mr. Mukherjee, in course of hearing of the writ application submitted that the petitioner had intimated the N. A. C. authorities that she would be away from Kuchinda and would be staying with her husband as she was expecting a child and the address of the husband has been indicated to the NAC authorities. Even thereafter the petitioner had informed the authorities that she is not getting subsistence allowance but yet there has been total inaction on the part of the NAC authorities. A suspension order, if not followed by a disciplinary proceeding within a reasonable period is liable to be annulled if the Court comes to the conclusion that the suspension is continuing for an unduly long period without initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, But such a situation has not arisen in the present case as the Chairman who was the disciplinary authority on an erroneous view had passed order of termination but later on recalled the same on being satisfied that due procedure has not been followed and thereafter a set of charges have been framed in August, 1992 as has been indicated in the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to accept the prayer of Mr. Mukherjee for the petitioner that the order of suspension should be quashed and at the same time we see no justifcation for the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding for this length of time. The charges which have been framed against the petitioner has been appended as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and copy of the counter affidavit has been served on Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, should file her show-cause within three weeks from today before the NAC and the appropriate authority should conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a period of 6 months from today. If the petitioner fails to file her show-cause within the aforesaid time then it would be open for the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceeding ex parte. The petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to receive her subsistence allowance from August, 1990. To defend oneself in a disciplinary proceeding without getting subsistence allowance may tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity. In that view of the matter, we direct that the arrears of subsistence allowance from August, 1990 till date may be paid to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today. The petitioner on filing her show-cause shall also initimate her present address to which the NAC would communicate to intimate the next date of hearing.

(2.) THE writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Requisites for issuance of writ shall be filed by tomorrow.