Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010161072019
2025:GAU-AS:1292
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4762/2019
SUREN HAZARIKA
S/O. CHANDRA HAZARIKA, R/O. GOVT. QUARTER NO.IV(S), 4/2 TYPE
VIII(S), BLOCK-15, CAPITAL COMPLEX, P.O. DISPUR, P.S. DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPTT., ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD (BUILDING)
ASSAM CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03.
3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PWD
GUWAHATI BUILDING CIRCLE-I
DISPUR GUWAHATI-03.
4:THE ESTATE OFFICER
PWD BUILDING
DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K KOTOKY, MR. N BORUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR R DHAR,SC, PWD
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
07.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.
Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department for the respondent.
2. The present writ petition is filed for setting aside and quashing the office order
No. 20/2017 issued by the Estate Officer, PWD (Bldg), Dispur, Guwahati-06,
whereby, the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. 10.11.2017 as he was
arrested and sent to jail in terms of Judgment and Sentence dated 21.06.2017
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in
CR Case No. 2363/2015. The petitioner is still under suspension pursuant to such
order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be
continued to be put under suspension without any departmental proceeding
being initiated against him. Referring to the judgment of Ajay Kumar
Chowdhury -Vs- The Union of India and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC
291, inasmuch as no review has been done for necessity of continuation of his
suspension.
4. Mr. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, in his usual fairness submits
that though no departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioner,
however, for the conviction of the petitioner, he was put under suspension and
the employer is contemplating to pass an order in exercise of its power under
Rule 10 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter
referred to as Rules, 1964).
5. The Rule 10 of the Rules, 1964 prescribes certain special procedure in certain
Page No.# 3/3
cases including a situation where penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on
the ground of conduct which laid to his conviction on a criminal charge. In terms
of the aforesaid provision, the Disciplinary Authority is to consider the
circumstances of the case and pass an order therein as deem fit.
6. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, though the employer is
having a right to exercise its power under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1964 inasmuch
as the petitioner is also having a right to get his case consider under Rule 10 of
the Rules, 1964, for him being convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 1881, the
petitioner by no stress of imapgination can be continued under suspension.
7. Accordingly, the impugned office order No. 20/2017 issued by the Estate
Officer, PWD (Bldg), Dispur, Guwahati-06, whereby, the petitioner was put under
suspension w.e.f. 10.11.2017, stands set aside and quashed. The petitioner be
reinstated in service forthwith.
8. It is made clear that such order shall not debar the authorities from exercising
their power under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1964 and pass an order in terms of the
aforesaid provision.
9. With the aforesaid, this present writ petition stands closed.
10. The communication dated 24.01.2025 issued by Estate Officer, PWD (Bldg),
Dispute, Guwahati-06, on the basis of which Mr. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel,
PWD has submitted that the department has contemplating to exercise its power
under Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, is kept on record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
