LALIT BASUMATARY Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application made under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ/writs quashing and/or revoking the impugned order of petitioner's suspension and for directions on the respondents to hold and conclude departmental proceeding within a reasonable time and also pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance with all arrears under revised pay scale pursuant to the Govt Circular No FIN (E)/IT/ 77/97, dated 27 10.1997.

(2.) The petitioner's case, briefly stated, runs thus: On the basis of an FIR lodged, on 20.03.1997, by respondent No 4, namely, Executive Engineer (E), Transmission Division, Miao, Changland, Arunachal Pradesh, alleging, inter alia, misappropriation of Govt revenue by the petitioner, while the latter was serving as UDC at Miao Electrical Sub Division, Miao PS Case No.26/97 under sections 420/408 IPC was registered Following registration of the said case, petitioner was vide order contained in Memo No. SE/APEC-1/Conf-36/ 97/373-378, dated 24.9.1997, issued by respondent No.2, was placed under suspension with effect from23.7.1997 in terms of Rule 10 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. By another order issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo No.SE/APEC-1-Conf-36/97- 381-86, dated 24.9.1997. the petitioner was allowed to draw 50 % of his salary as subsistence allowance with effect from 23.7.1997 as per provisions of FR 53 (i) (ii) (a). As more than one year had elapsed since after he was placed under suspension and no departmental proceeding had been drawn and/or initiated against him, the petitioner challenged, in this writ petition, the acts of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding against him alleging that the action of the respondents was intended to harass the petitioner, the same was malafide, vindictive and illegal and that the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance @ 75% of the salary and allowance from 1.11.1998, which was arbitrary in nature inasmuch as after six months of his suspension, the petitioner was entitled to receive subsistence allowance @ 75% of his salary and allowances as per the relevant rules.

(3.) Though the respondents have contested this case, they have not chosen to file any affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case. Hence, the averments and/ or statements of facts contained in the present writ petition are to be treated as admitted facts and the matter needs to be disposed of accordingly.