Narayan Ch De vs Raj Chakraborty
2022 Latest Caselaw 4629 Gua

                                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010111452022




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

                              Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/305/2022

            NARAYAN CH DE
            SON OF LATE GOPAL CHANDRA DE, RESIDENT OF KALAPAHAR,
            GUWAHATI- 781032, KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            RAJ CHAKRABORTY
            SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
            ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING AND NATIONAL
            HIGHWAY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 23-11-2022

Heard Mr. K N Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contemnors.

2. This contempt petition is instituted alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order Page No.# 2/3

dated 27.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 1478/2022. By the said order, the petitioner having been placed under a deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short, the Rules of 1964), was required to be given a consideration under proviso to Rule 6(2).

3. Proviso to Rule 6(2) inter-alia provides that upon an employee being released from custody after having been detained beyond 48 (forty eight) hours in a police case because of which he was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 6(2), there is a requirement for the appointing authority to consider whether the detention was made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve any moral turpitude and upon such consideration, the appointing authority may vacate the order of suspension under 6(2).

4. Accordingly, by the order dated 27.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 1478/2022 a direction was issued to the appointing authority of the petitioner to pass an order under proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964.

5. In response thereof, an order dated 03.06.2022 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Public Works (Buildings & NH) Department has been produced before the Court which is said to have been passed in compliance of the requirement of the aforesaid order.

6. A reading of the order dated 03.06.2022 of the Secretary makes it discernable that the Secretary was of the view that the decision of revocation of the suspension of the petitioner would be taken after receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer. A reading of the said order makes it discernable that the Secretary is seeking to relate the revocation of the suspension of the petitioner with the disciplinary proceeding, which in our view would be a consideration different from that of a consideration under the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 03.06.2022 of the Secretary is unacceptable to be a compliance of the order dated 27.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 1478/2022. The Secretary may pass a fresh order strictly in terms of the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 as indicated in the order dated 27.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 1478/2022.

8. The fresh order be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of Page No.# 3/3

certified copy of this order.

9. A copy of the order dated 03.06.2022 is kept on record.

Contempt petition stands closed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant