Trailokya Ramchiary vs The Assam Power Distribution ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3076 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010179712021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5777/2021

            TRAILOKYA RAMCHIARY
            S/O LATE SADANANDA RAMCHIARY,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATHALARTARI, PO BHAWANIPUR, DIST
            BARPETA, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN , ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION
            COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN, GUWAHATI 781001

            2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE
            BHAWAN
             GUWAHATI 781001

            3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.HRA.
            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE
            BHAWAN
             GUWAHATI 781001

            4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.HRA
            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE
            BHAWAN
             GUWAHATI 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR. B AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/3

                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                           ORDER

Date : 24-11-2021

Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Order dated 24.07.2021. As no charge sheet or departmental proceeding has been filed/initiated against the petitioner and no review on the suspension order had taken place within 90 days from the date of issuance of the suspension order, the petitioner's suspension order should have been revoked in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the APDCL submits that though the writ petition was filed on 27.10.2021, the charge sheet has been filed subsequently, i.e. on 06.11.2021. He also submits that the petitioner has made a reply to the show cause notice issued. He accordingly submits that the directions passed in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra), may not be applicable to the petitioner due to the above facts.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3 (three) months, if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. The Apex Court has also held that if the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension.

In the present case, the charge sheet/memorandum of charge was not filed within 90 days. Further, though the charge sheet has been filed after filing of the present writ petition, there is nothing to show that a reasoned order has been passed by the State respondents for extension of the suspension. Also, no charge sheet had been filed at the time of filing this writ petition, i.e. 95 days after the suspension order had been issued.

Page No.# 3/3

Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above, the suspension order dated 24.07.2021 is set aside. The respondents should immediately reinstate the petitioner into service. However, the respondents are given the liberty to transfer the petitioner to any department, in any of its offices within or outside the State, so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant