ROHINI GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. LN Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent, PHED.

(2.) The petitioner is serving as a senior assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, North Lakhimpur, PHED. By the office order no. 63 of 2019-2020 dated 22.11.2019 of the Executive Engineer, PHE, North Lakhimpur division, he was placed under suspension pending a departmental proceeding. It is stated and also confirmed by the respondent PHED that after the order of suspension dated 22.11.2019, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and no showcause as required under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 has been issued.

(3.) In this writ petition, the order of suspension dated 22.11.2019 is assailed on the ground that as laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India, 2015 7 SCC 291, no memorandum of charges/charge-sheet had been served within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the order of suspension. Accordingly, it is contended that as the charge-sheet had not been served within the period of 3 (three) months), the same is no longer sustainable in law.