KAMAL KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in the present Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department suspending the petitioner from service by invoking power under Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing counsel for the P. W.D.

(3.) The writ petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension dated 26.7.2004 on the ground that the authority has not exercised the power under rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules bonafide and keeping in view the allegation on which the writ petitioner was suspended from service, there was no necessity for placing him under suspension as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the power of suspension cannot be exercised in an administrative routine manner and the authority before passing an order of suspension is required to take into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be investigated or enquired into as well as the nature of evidence placed before him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of suspension was passed in a most mechanical way without taking into consideration the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The further submission of Mr. Pathak is that the petitioner was suspended from service on the ground of his absence from duty, although he was regularly attending his office and even assuming he was not present in the site, the same in any case cannot be considered a grave misconduct even if it is proved in the disciplinary proceeding. The charges being not grave and there being no chance of interfering with the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against the petitioner, there was no necessity to place the officer under suspension. Mr. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that though the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 26.7.2004, no show cause notice has been served on him till date and hence the disciplinary proceedings has not commenced inspite of expiry of more than four months from the date of placing the petitioner under suspension. Mr. Pathak has referred to the Government circular whereby it has been directed that the disciplinary proceeding has to be initiated within six months from the date of putting the officer under suspension. Hence, Mr. Pathak has prayed for setting aside of the order of suspension dated 26.7.2004. Mr. Pathak, in support of his contention, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa V. Bimal Mohanty reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296.