Rajib Ch. Bordoloi vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1930 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010078582023




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2564/2023

         RAJIB CH. BORDOLOI
         SON OF LATE JITENDRA NATH BORDOLOI,
         VILLAGE- TARAJAN KAKOTI GAON,
         P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT,
         DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM,
         PIN- 785001.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
         TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT
         ASSAM
          PARIBAHAN BHAWAN

         JAWAHAR NAGAR
          KHANAPARA

         GUWAHATI-22.

         4:THE DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
         ASSAM
          GUWAHATI-32.
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3


            5:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
             CHARAIDEO
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                        ORDER

Date : 12.05.2023 Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. D. Borah, the learned Government Advocate appears for the respondent No. 4.

2. Issue notice making it returnable on 19th of May, 2023.

3. As the respondents are duly represented by their respective counsels, extra copies of the writ petition be served upon them during the course of the day.

4. The case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was suspended vide an order dated 5/11/2022. It is the specific case of the petitioner that till date there has been neither any departmental proceedings drawn up nor the memorandum of charge/the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in terms with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the period of suspension cannot exceed a period of 90 days, if within the said period the memorandum of charge/the Page No.# 3/3

chargesheet has not been served upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel submitted that on 5/11/2022 the petitioner was suspended but till date even after a passage of more than 6 months nothing has been done.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 are directed to apprise this Court as to whether the respondent authorities have served the memorandum of charge/the chargesheet upon the petitioner and as to whether there has been a compliance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra).

7. Liberty is given to the petitioner to mention the matter for upgrading .

8. The registry shall indicate the name of Mr. D. Borah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in the cause list.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant