Gauhati High Court
Hiranya Barman vs The Guwahati Municipal ... on 24 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010110502023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2883/2023
HIRANYA BARMAN
SON OF LATE BINANDA BARMAN,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (U/S),
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 17,
BAKRAPARA, NEW COLONY,
P.O. AND P.S.- BASISTHA,
GUWAHATI- 781029, DIST- KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI- 781005.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI
781006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 24.05.2023
Heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. D.
Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
2. Taking into account the issue involved in the instant writ petition, the matter is
taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.
3. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of suspension dated 24/10/2022
as well as also the departmental proceedings initiated on the basis of the
memorandum of charge dated 29/12/2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that
the order dated 24/10/2022 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension, is
contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and more
particularly paragraph 21 wherein it has been mentioned that even after the
memorandum of charge has been served upon the delinquent employee, the
disciplinary authority has to pass a reasoned order for extending the suspension
period which had not been done in the instant case and as such, the petitioner is
entitled to reinstatement.
4. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the instant disciplinary
proceedings should be quashed on the ground that there is a criminal proceedings
pending before the Criminal Court.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the
GMC, submits that in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (supra), directions were issued to the effect that upon serving the
Page No.# 3/4
memorandum of charge upon the delinquent employee, a reasoned order has to be
passed for extending the suspension period. The learned counsel referred to the Office
Memorandum dated 4/2/2020 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of
Assam in the Personnel Department wherein it has been mentioned that a review has
to be made within a period of six months from the date of submission of the
memorandum of charge. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No. 1 submits that the memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on
29/12/2022 and as on date, the period of six months is not over.
6. Be that as it may, it is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No. 1 that in compliance to the Office Memorandum dated
4/2/2020 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary(supra), steps would be taken within 15 days from today, if such steps
have not yet been taken. On the submission as regards quashing of the disciplinary
proceedings on the basis that a criminal proceedings are presently in process, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the same is contrary
to the well settled principles of law inasmuch as a disciplinary proceedings can very
well continue side by side with the criminal proceedings and it is only in extreme cases
where the criminal proceedings relates to charges of grave nature, the departmental
proceedings at best, can be stayed, not quashed.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and taking into account that
the memorandum of charge was issued on 29/12/2022 and the petitioner has also
submitted a reply on 6/1/2023 and the disciplinary proceedings is presently going
ahead with the criminal proceedings, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for
interference with the suspension order. However, it is made clear that it is the
mandate of law that there has to be extension of the suspension order by a reasoned
order, which as per the Office Memorandum dated 4/2/2020 is to be done within a
period of six months. Taking into account that the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent No. 1 submits that the same would be done within a period of 15
Page No.# 4/4
days from today, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension or
the further continuation of the suspension subject to the respondent authorities
passing a reasoned order within 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is
served upon the Commissioner, GMC.
8. In respect to the question pertaining to the quashing of the disciplinary
proceedings on the ground that there is a criminal proceedings initiated, it is no longer
res integra that a criminal proceedings as well as the disciplinary proceedings can run
side by side and it is only in the case of offences of grave nature, the disciplinary
proceedings can be stayed pending disposal of the criminal proceedings. Under such
circumstances, the question of interfering with the disciplinary proceedings does not
arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed off in terms with the
observations made herein above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
