Rajib Lahon vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3176 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010024192021




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/982/2021

            RAJIB LAHON
            S/O- LT. PADMA KANTA LAHON, FLAT NO. 2A, PUSP ENCLAVE, BHASKAR
            NAGAR BY LANE-2, NEAR B S. PUBLICATION, ZOO ROAD TINIALI, GHY-
            21, KAMRUP (M)



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, A.H AND
            VETERINARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06, ASSAM

            2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
            A.H AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
             DISPUR
             GHY-06
            ASSAM

            3:THE DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE)
             DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
             GOVT. OF ASSAM
             KHANAPARA
             GHY-22
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D K DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                        BEFORE
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4

          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                        ORDER

29.11.2021

Heard Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.04.2020 vide Notification dated 04.02.2020 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, AH & Veterinary Department.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that memorandum of charge/charge sheet has not been furnished to the petitioner within three months and that the same has been furnished only after filing of the present case. He further submits that even after submission of the memorandum of charge/charge sheet, the State respondents have not taken a decision for extension of the suspension period.

3. The petitioner's counsel thus prays that the suspension order should be set aside in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

4. Mr. D Nath, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that as per the letter dated 09.04.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, AH & Veterinary Department, the steps for reinstatement/suspension is being processed by the Department. He submits that till today, the process is still not completed.

Page No.# 3/4

5. The respondent's counsel also submits that the memorandum of charge/charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner after the filing of the writ petition and that the petitioner has submitted a written statement of defence.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Apex Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond a period of 90 days, unless the memorandum of charge/charge-sheet is filed against the petitioner within the said period. Further, if within the said period of 90 days, the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, then also the State Government would have to make a reasoned decision with regard to extension of the suspension period.

8. In the present case, the memorandum of charge/charge sheet has been filed long after the suspension order has been passed i.e., after the present writ petition was filed on 08.02.2021. Further as can be seen from the letter dated 09.04.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, AH & Veterinary Department which is addressed to the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, the State respondents have not taken a decision till date, for extension of the petitioner's suspension period. As the memorandum of charge/charge sheet was not filed within 90 days and as there is no decision of the Government with regard to the extension of the suspension order, the same is not in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Page No.# 4/4

Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). This Court is accordingly of the view that the suspension order is not sustainable. The impugned suspension order is thus set aside. The petitioner should be reinstated into service immediately. However, the State Government is at liberty to transfer the petitioner to any of their Offices, inside or outside the State, so that the petitioner does not come into contact with any of the witnesses or evidence.

9. It is needless to add that the State respondents can carry on with the departmental proceeding in terms of the Rules.

10. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant