LAWS(GAU)-2023-2-24

KULENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On February 27, 2023
Kulendra Kumar Das Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioner herein is that an FIR was filed being Bongaigaon P.S. Case 742/2021 under Ss. 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC wherein there has been certain allegations made of execution of a forged registered Sale Deed bearing No. 839/779. Subsequent thereto the petitioner was arrested on 24/6/2022. On the ground that the petitioner was arrested, the respondent authorities have exercised powers under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (for short "the Rules of 1964") and had put the petitioner under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceedings made on 1/7/2022 giving effect from 24/6/2022. It further appears from the records that on 8/7/2022, the petitioner was granted the bail by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Misc. Criminal Case No. 137/2022. Thereupon the petitioner from time and again had requested the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension order and to re-instate him. However, the respondent authorities as alleged, in complete derogation to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr Choudhury Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 had continued with the suspension for which the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. Kaushik has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam reported in 2020 (2) GLR 621 and submitted that the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Ajay Kr Choudhury(supra) would also be applicable in the case of a deemed suspension done in exercise of the powers under Rule 6(2) of the 1964 Rules. The learned counsel therefore referred to paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment which are reproduced herein below:-