MRINMOY KUMAR DAWKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, who at the relevant time posted as the Superintendent of Central Jail, Tezpur was arrested on 16/7/2020 in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 841/2020 under Sec. 354A/409 and 376(C) of the Indian Penal Code. He was placed under suspension vide impugned order dtd. 18/7/2020 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department in exercise of power under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Amongst others, on the ground that no charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court and no charge-sheet in respect of any disciplinary proceeding was served on the petitioner within three months of his suspension, and nor any review of the order of suspension was made within three months from the date of suspension despite submitting representations dtd. 12/11/2020 and 7/4/2021, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of suspension dtd. 18/7/2020, and his continued suspension. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case of (i) Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291 and (ii) Rakibuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam and Ors., 2019 (5) GLT 600 (DB).

(3.) It may be mentioned that although the Court had issued notice of motion returnable within three weeks by order dtd. 3/5/2021, the State respondents have not filed any affidavit-in- opposition. At the outset the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that due to some medical issues, she would be going out of station today and a fervent prayer was made to adjourn the matter for at least two weeks to enable her to file an affidavit-in- opposition. The prayer for adjournment was refused and the matter was heard on merit. While refusing the prayer for adjournment, the Court was fully conscious of the intent and purport of the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra). In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote the observation of the Supreme Court of India in para-12 of the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), which reads as follows:-