Gauhati High Court
Dipankar Dehingia vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010262052022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8268/2022
DIPANKAR DEHINGIA
S/O LATE DONDIRAM DEHINGIA, R/O HOUSE NO. 1138, DR. ZAKIR
HUSSAIN PATH, SARUMOTORIA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST- KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER (ELECTRICITY)
DEPARTMENT, D-BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-06
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LIMITED (AEGCL)
BIJULEE BHWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AEGCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) I/C
AEGCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 29.03.2023
Heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. S. Katoki, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4, Ms.S. Baruah, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 26/9/2021 whereby the Managing Director, AEGCL has suspended the
petitioner with immediate effect under Rule 3(i) (a) , Rule 3(1) (b) and Rule 3 (i)
(c) of Rule 10 of the ASEB General Service Regulations(For Officers), 1960 pending
drawal of departmental proceedings. It appears on record that in connection with
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4/2021 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7(c)/13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 24/9/2021. Thereupon the
petitioner was produced before the Court of the Special Judge, Assam on
25/9/2021. As stated above on 26/9/2021 on the ground that the petitioner was
arrested for a period of more than 48 hours, he was put under suspension vide the
order dated 26/9/2021. It further appears on record that on 18/11/2021 in Bail
Application No. 2940/2021, the petitioner was granted bail. The petitioner
thereupon submitted a representation dated 24/11/202 before the respondent No.
3 i.e. the Managing Director, AEGCL for revoking his suspension and allow him to
resume his duties.
3. It appears on record that the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 who is the
disciplinary authority have not served the memorandum of charges/ the charge-
Page No.# 3/5
sheet upon the petitioner till date but have been continuing with the said
suspension order thereby extending it periodically every 90 days. It is under such
circumstances, the petitioner had initially approached this Court by filing a writ
petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 7483/2022. This Court
disposed off the said writ petition directing the Chairman of the Assam Electricity
Grid Corporation Limited to pass a reasoned order upon examination of the claim
of the petitioner for vacating the suspension order. It further appears that on
12/12/2022 the respondent/Managing Director of the AEGCL had instead of
considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement have further extended the
suspension order for another period of 90 days or until further orders. Being
aggrieved the petitioner is therefore before this Court.
4. This Court have perused Rule 10 of the ASEB General Service Regulations(For
Officers), 1960. A perusal of Rule 10 shows that the same is in parametaria to Rule
6 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1964. Rule 10(3) (ii) is similar
to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964.
5. This Court had made a specific query upon Mr. S. Kotoki, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as to whether any
memorandum of charges/the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner in
the meantime. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondents
with all fairness submitted that that memorandum of charges/the charge-sheet has
not been served upon the petitioner on the ground that the same could not be
prepared in view of the fact that the documents on the basis of which the
authorities would be issuing the memorandum of charges/the charge-sheet is lying
with the police.
6. This Court would further like to take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury Vs. Union of India reported in
Page No.# 4/5
(2015) 7 SCC 291 wherein in paragraph 21 the Supreme Court had categorically
mandated that the currency of a suspension order should not exceed more than
three months unless and until the memorandum of charges, chargesheet is not
served upon the delinquent employee and if served then there has to be a review
for by reasons to be recorded.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. State
of Assam and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 GLR 621 had categorically observed
that the principles as laid down in Ajay Kr. Choudhury(supra) duly applies to a case
of deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 which is parametaria
to Rule 10(3) (ii) of the Assam State Electricity Board General Service
Regulations(For Officers), 1960. Subsequently thereto, this Court had also vide a
judgment and order dated 17/2/2023 in Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of
Assam & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 455/2023)have also categorically held that the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kr. Choudhury(supra) to the effect that the
period of three months shall be counted from the date on which the representation
has been submitted that the petitioner has been released on bail or otherwise is
not in custody or imprisonment.
8. It appears on record that the respondent authorities are aware of the fact that
the petitioner was released on bail on 18/11/2021 as the same was duly intimated
on 24/11/2021.
9. I have also perused the order dated 12/12/2022 by which the petitioner's
request for being reinstated has been turned down. In doing so, the authorities
concerned have not taken into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra). Taking into account that the further
continuation of the suspension order dated 26/9/2021 and the various extension to
the said suspension order after every 90 days and the order dated 12/12/2022
Page No.# 5/5
being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kr.
Choudhury(supra), this Court therefore directs the respondents to forthwith
reinstate the petitioner. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner that the petitioner is going to retire on 31/3/2023. Consequently, the
respondent authorities are directed to reinstate forthwith the petitioner to a non-
sensitive post taking into account the contemplation of the departmental
proceedings.
10. With the above, the petition stands disposed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
