JYOTISH MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of an order of suspension.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued on 25.9.2001 and the Govt. Advocate was asked to receive instruction as to the reason leading to the suspension of the petitioner and the date also was fixed i.e. 3.10.2001. On 3.10.2001, Mr A.C. Buragohain, learned GA prayed for time to obtain instruction as to the reason which have led the authority to put the petitioner under suspension. The matter was again listed on 5.10.2001. On 5.10.2001 learned Govt. Advocate, Mr N.C. Phukan took time to receive instruction. Thereafter, it was listed on 10.10.2001. On 10.10.2001, two days time granted as prayed for. Thereafter it was listed on 12.10.2001 and on that date, time was granted till 15.10.2001. The matter wasi listed on 15.10.2001 and on that date also, learned GA prayed for adjournment till 17.10.2001 and the matter has been listed today i.e. 17.10.2001. This will showthat the GA took time on 5 occasions to receive instruction. The seat of power of the State of Assam is at a distance of about 10 KM from thisiCourt and this Court took a serious view in this matter in view of the fact that the petitioner earlier was Project Director, DRDA where he was on deputation and he was sent back as Deputy Secretary, Power where he is working. He is an ACS Officer. He is to retire in the month of January, 2001 and serious allegations have been made in the writ application with regard to the order of suspension. Those allegations are made in paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of the writ application. These are quoted below:

(3.) The law with regard to power of suspension have by now crystalised. Suspension is not a punishment. The Division Bench of this Court as far back as on 6.9.1983 in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Barthakur-Vs-State of Assam & Ors. reported in (1983) 2 GLR 459, laid down the law as follows: