Gauhati High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer (U/S) vs The Guwahati Municipal Corporation And ... on 24 June, 2025
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010242342023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6305/2023
PRADIP KUMAR SARMA
S/O LATE PANCHANAN DEV SARMA
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (U/S)
GUWHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION R/O BORSAJAI
GHORAMARA
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI- 28
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
DISPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI- 781006.
------------
Advocate for : MR. A K SARMA
Advocate for : SC
GMC appearing for THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
Page No.# 2/15
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 24-06-2025
Heard Mr. AK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak,
learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the GMC).
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2022, whereby the petitioner
was placed under suspension with effect from 18.11.2022 as well as the impugned order
dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Commissioner, GMC, whereby the petitioner's suspension
stood extended until further orders. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Executive
Engineer under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and he was placed under suspension with
effect from 18.11.2022 pursuant to his arrest 15.11.2022 in connection with Vigilance Police
Station Case No. 04/2022 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/409/468/471 IPC read with Section
13(1)(a)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. Subsequently, he was granted bail on 16.12.2022 by this
Hon'ble Court. From the pleadings available on record, it is seen that the charge-sheet in the
criminal proceedings was filed on 11.01.2023. The criminal proceedings are pending disposal
before the competent Court of Jurisdiction. The petitioner was served with a show-cause
notice on 29.12.2022 by the Department, to which he filed a reply on 06.01.2023 denying all
the charges. Since the suspension was not withdrawn, the petitioner approached this Court
by filing WP(C) No.2888/2023 on the ground that no review for extension was made after
expiry of 90 (ninety) days and which is a violation of the law laid down in Ajay Kumar
Choudhury vs. The Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. This Court by order dated
24.05.2023 disposed of the said writ petition, however, declined to interfere with the
Page No.# 3/15
suspension order passed by the Authority. However, the Court directed the respondent
authorities to pass a reasoned order within 15 (fifteen) days from the date a certified copy of
this order is served upon the Commissioner, GMC. In deference to the direction passed by the
Court in WP(C) No. 2888/2023, the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 was passed, whereby
the suspension of the petitioner stood extended.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been placed under
suspension for a period of almost 3 (three) years. Although the Departmental Proceedings
have been initiated, however, pursuant to issuance of the memo of charges to which the writ
petitioner filed a reply, the Disciplinary Proceedings have not progressed any further. Learned
counsel or the petitioner submits that the proceedings have not progressed as all relevant
records and files, on the basis of which the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner, are under the custody of the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell,
Guwahati. There is no response received from the investigating authority as to when the files
would be returned back and as a consequence thereof, there is a complete uncertainty with
regard to the progress of the Disciplinary Proceedings. It is submitted that when the
Departmental Proceedings have not progressed against the petitioner, and the relevant
records and files are under the custody of the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell,
Guwahati, the prolonged suspension of the petitioner is totally unwarranted and therefore,
the same should be set aside and interfered with. It is further submitted that the Coordinate
Bench by order dated 24.05.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2888/2023 had although declined to
interfere with the suspension order but directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order
within 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Commissioner,
GMC. By order dated 15.06.2023, the authorities extended the suspension of the petitioner,
Page No.# 4/15
although it is not reflected in the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 that this order is passed
in deference to the order passed in WP(C) No.2888/2023. However, the same is not
supported by adequate reasons. Accordingly, the petitioner is aggrieved that the extension of
the suspension of the petitioner was undertaken without proper reasons and in spite of the
order dated 24.05.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2888/2023. The only reason for extension of the
suspension of the petitioner as is discernable from the order dated 15.06.2023 is that the
relevant records and files were taken by the concerned officials of the Chief Minister's Special
Vigilance Cell. It is submitted that under such circumstances, the prolonged suspension of the
petitioner is totally uncalled for and therefore, the impugned extension order(s) being benefit
of reasons is required to be set aside and quashed.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and State of Tamil
Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government (Home) vs. Promod Kumar, IPS and Another
reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677. Pressing the said judgments into service, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the extension of the suspension of the petitioner is not supported
by the reasons which justify his prolonged suspension. It is further submitted that this
extension is in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, whereby the
Government of Assam has laid down the procedure to review and extend the suspension
required to be carried out by the Department against the delinquent officers. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of
Orissa and Others vs. Chandra Nandi reported in (2019) 4 SCC 357 to support his contention
that the judicial and quasi judicial orders are passed by the Court or authority concerned
which decides lis between the parties must be supported with reasons in support of its
Page No.# 5/15
conclusion. In support of the his contention further reference is made to the judgment of
State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568 and Union Public Service
Commission vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others AIR 2021 SC 2396. Referring to these
judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned order of
extension of suspension dated 15.06.2023 does not justify the grounds and reasons for the
prolonged suspension of the petitioner, the impugned extension order of suspension dated
15.06.2023 is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and the same should be set aside and
quashed.
5. Per contra, Mr. P Nayak, leaned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the
GMC strongly disputes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He
submits that no challenge is made to the suspension order, moreover, by the earlier order
dated 24.05.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2888/2023, the Coordinate Bench clearly declined to
interfere with the suspension order in view of the gravity of the offences alleged against the
writ petitioner but liberty was given to the respondents to pass a reasoned order within 15
days. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the impugned extensions of
suspension order dated 15.06.2023 cannot be said to be bereft of any reasons. It is further
submitted that the reasons for the extension are clearly reflected in the recital of the
impugned order dated 15.06.2023 that since the records and relevant files are still in the
custody of the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell, the suspension was required to be
extended. Once the relevant documents and papers are received from the Chief Minister's
Special Vigilance Cell, the Department will proceed with the enquiry and if required, the
review of the requirement of keeping the petitioner under continuance suspension can be
taken at that stage again. It is submitted that since the original suspension order dated
Page No.# 6/15
18.11.2022 was not interfered with by the Coordinate Bench, any interference with the
subsequent extension order would amount to interference of the original order of suspension.
Mr. P. Nayak in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India
and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147, wherein he submits
that the suspension can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the
alleged offences, the seriousness of the act or omission and the nature of evidence available.
Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuance in the office is also a relevant and
determinative factor. These factors will have to be taken into consideration as no formula for
universal application can be laid down in this regard. He also refers to the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154.
6. It is submitted that the Court has to consider the relevant factors and to balance and
weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the
disciplinary proceeding should be allowed to terminate after delay, particularly when the delay
is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. Where the reasons have been properly
explained as to why the delay has occurred in conclusion of the Disciplinary Proceedings, this
Court ordinarily should not interfere with the extension of the suspension order.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have
been carefully perused and judgments pressed into service has been noted.
8. The petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 6 of the Assam Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1964 prescribes how the suspension of the Government Officer to be carried out. For
the purposes of this case the reference to Rule 6 (1) and Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, 1964 would
Page No.# 7/15
be relevant and the same are extracted below:
PART - III - SUSPENSION
6.* Suspension.
(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority
empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension -
(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or
(b) Where is the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in activities
prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or
(c) Where a case against him in respect any criminal offence is under investigation inquiry or
trial; Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing
Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the Circumstances in which
the order was made.
(2) A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or
otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect
from the date of such detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under
suspension until further orders.
Provided that where the detention is 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 moral turpitude,
the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he
is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment."
9. A perusal of Rules 6 (1) and Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, 1964 reveals that the Government
is authorised to place a Government servant under suspension under Rule 6 (1), when there
is a Disciplinary Proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where in the opinion
of the Authority the delinquent officer has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the
interest or the security of the State or where a case against the delinquent officer in respect
of any criminal offence which is under the investigation inquiry or trial. However, in the
Page No.# 8/15
present case there is no dispute that the petitioner's suspension has been extended due to
pending drawal of the Disciplinary Proceedings. However, from the order, it is apparent that
the petitioner was not placed under suspension in terms of the Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, 1964.
10. The law with regard to the prolonged suspension and continuation thereof has been
elaborately delt with by the Apex Curt in several judgments. The parameters for continuation
of suspension have been laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra). The
findings of the Apex Court in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said decision would be relevant in
the facts of this case and are, therefore, extracted below :-
" 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond
three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/chargesheet is not served on
the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a
reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand,
the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its
offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The
Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and
documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately
safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We
recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings
on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of
a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not
be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance
Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held
in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.
22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Appellant has now been
served with a Chargesheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him
any longer. However, if the Appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued
suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the Respondents will be
subject to judicial review."
11. In view of the Vigilance Police Station Case No. 04/2022 under Sections 120(B)/ 420/
406/ 409/ 468/ 471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(a)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, which was
initiated against the petitioner and other persons, the petitioner came to be placed under
suspension pending drawal of the Departmental Proceedings. The Department had served the
Page No.# 9/15
show cause notice on 29.11.2022 on the delinquent officer to which the delinquent officer
had also filed his reply and consequent thereto, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer
have also been appointed. However, the Departmental Proceedings have not been proceeded
with any further as the relevant files and records and papers on the basis of which the
proceedings are required to initiated against the petitioner are still in the custody of the Chief
Minister's Special Vigilance Cell and the papers have not been received back by the
Department till date. It is not in dispute that the delay that has occurred in the progress of
the Departmental Proceedings cannot be attributed to the delinquent officer as in spite of the
show cause notice served and reply filed and even though the Enquiry Officer and Presenting
Officer were appointed, the proceedings have not commenced further in the absence of the
relevant records, papers and files being made available to the Department. In spite of counter
affidavit being filed and opportunities being granted to the respondents to complete the
instructions with regard to the status of the Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of the
petitioner, the instructions are not before the Court since the records pertaining to this case
are admittedly not received by the Department from the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance
Cell. In the context of the judgments which are referred to at the Bar, in Promod Kumar, IPS
(supra), the Apex Court interfered with the prolonged suspension on the ground that there is
no material before the Court to suggest that during the period the petitioner was bail, there
was instances that the petitioner therein attempted to tamper with the evidence. The Apex
Court noted that the only ground for extension of the suspension of the petitioner therein
was on the basis of the minutes of the Review Committee Meeting wherein it was mentioned
that the delinquent officer was capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses and
misusing Office if he is reinstated in Office. In Chandra Nandi (supra), the Apex Court held
Page No.# 10/15
that every judicial and/or quasi judicial orders are passed by Court/ Tribunal/ Authority
concerned, which decides the list between the parties, must be supported by reasons in
support of its conclusions. The Apex Court held that the parties to the lis, and so also the
Appellate /Revisionary Court, while examining the correctness of the order, is entitled to know
as to on what basis the particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any
discussions, the reasons and the findings it was not possible to know as to what led the
Court/Tribunal/Authority for arriving at the conclusion. In Dhaniram Luhar (supra) the Apex
Court held that the reasons introduce clarity in an order. The reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. The reason substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis of recording reasons is that if a decision reveals "inscrutable face of
the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the
decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Reasons at least
should be sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the Court. In
Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others (supra), it was again held by the Apex Court that the
reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision. Without them, one is left with a shell and the
shell provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant.
12. In so far as the judgments referred to by the respondents are concerned in N
Radhakishnan (supra), the Apex court, while examining the delay in conclusion of a
departmental enquiry, held that the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant
factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest
administration that disciplinary procedings should be allowed to terminate after delay,
particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for delay. It was held that
Page No.# 11/15
delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for
the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. In Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal (supra) after examining the earlier precedents of the Apex Court, it was held
that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of
the alleged misconduct, i.e., serious act of omission or commission and the nature of
evidence available. It cannot be actuated by malice or arbitrariness or ulterior motive. Effect
on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also relevant and a
determining factor. However, suspension order should be passed only when there is a strong
prima facie case against the delinquent and if the charges can proved, ordinarily warrant
imposition of major punishment which is removal or dismissal from service or reduction in
rank etc.
13. After noting the judgment's cited above, it is clear that there is no quarrel with the
proposition that the Department has the power to keep an delinquent officer under
suspension, keeping in view the nature of the gravity of the offenses alleged and if the
authorities of the view that in the event the charges are proved, it will amount to major
punishment.
14. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the charges leveled against the petitioner as per
the charge sheet are extracted below:
Charge No. 1: You have criminally conspired and did not implement the de-siltation
works as per terms and conditions laid down in tender documents and payment was released
to the contractors without proper verification and execution of works based on forged and
fake weighbridge slips for your own pecuniary benefits and misappropriated government
Page No.# 12/15
fund. Such act of yours resulted in fraud, dishonesty and degraded the reputation of the
organization to lower level.
Charge No. 2: You have not recorded/prepared any Measurement Book (MB) which is
mandatory as per Rule 293 of Assam Financial Rule.
Charge No. 3: You intentionally did not maintain the log books on day to day basis,
which shows gross negligence and malpractice on your part.
Charge No. 4: You have criminally conspired with the alleged Firm M/S Dinsan Global
Venture Pvt. Ltd. & prepared/ submitted forged weighbridge slip and submitted
inflated bills & therapy deliberately retrained yourself from certifying those slips. Such
act shows the negligence and incompetency on your part.
Charge No. 5: You have intentionally ignored the anomalies & irregularities in regards
to supply of vehicles and trip undertaken by the vehicles supplied by the alleged firm.
Such forgery would not have been possible without your active connivance.
Charge No. 6: You have committed misconduct in misappropriation of Govt. fund for
your own personal benefit.
Charge No. 7: You being a member of the tender evaluation committee, violated the
terms and conditions of the tender and financial rules, offered the contract to the third
party i.e Sri Mithu Agarwal.
15. The petitioner had submitted his reply in the abovementioned charges. However, as
have been discussed above, in the absence of the relevant records, papers and files, the
proceedings have not been continued, notwithstanding, the petitioner being placed under
suspension. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other two
officers, who were suspended along with the petitioner and were on deputation to the GMC,
have already been reinstated in their posts by the parent Department. The order of extension
of suspension dated 15.06.2023 reflects that the only ground that the petitioner's suspension
is required to be extended as the relevant office records, documents, files are under the
Page No.# 13/15
custody of the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell. The impugned order dated the
15.06.2023 also reveals clearly that the Departmental Proceedings have been deferred until
further orders and under these circumstances, the petitioner's suspension was extended.
Subsequently, the authorities have issued another order dated 21.03.2025 on the same
grounds, namely, the records and files of the Department are still in the custody of the Chief
Minister's Special Vigilance Cell in connection with Vigilance Police station case No.04 of 2022
and the process of procuring these files is underway and consequently, the petitioner's
suspension was extended. The subsequent order dated 21.03.2025 does not disclose the
status of the Disciplinary Proceedings. Subsequently, on the same day another order dated
21.03.2025 was issued, whereby the decision of deferring the Departmental Proceedings was
withdrawn with immediate effect and the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, who
were appointed, were directed to continue with the Departmental Proceedings and conduct
enquiry into the charges framed. Under such circumstances, what is evident is that the files
and relevant records pertaining to the proceedings have not yet been received. As per
instructions although a prayer is made for receipt of the records, the relevant records have
not yet been received.
16. Having given anxious consideration to the facts evident from the foregoing, as well as
the principles laid down by the Apex Court and the applicable rules, it is seen that the
Department is within its power to place an officer under suspension, inter alia, in
contemplation of the Departmental Proceedings. The Departmental Proceedings have been
initiated. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have also been appointed. However, as
discussed above, in the absence of the relevant records and files, the proceedings have not
been able to be carried on and notwithstanding, that the petitioner continues to be under
Page No.# 14/15
suspension, it is no longer res integra that suspension is not a punishment that may be used
by the authorities as a means to punish a delinquent officer. Until the charges are proved, the
delinquent officer cannot be held to be guilty. What is also apparent from the pleadings that
the charges framed against the petitioner in Vigilance Police Station Case No. 04/2022 under
Sections 120(B)/420/406/409/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(a)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988
is the basis on which the show cause and the charges against the petitioner are framed in the
Departmental Proceedings. There is no quarrel with the proposition that Departmental
Proceedings and Criminal Investigations and trial can proceed independently. However, when
they are based on similar charges, there have been instances where till conclusion of the
criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings are kept on hold. What is required to be
decided is whether the grounds and reasons stated in the impugned order can justify the
continued extension and prolonged suspension of the writ petitioner. The reasons for
extension of the suspension and the non conclusion of the Departmental Proceedings from
the pleadings available on record cannot be attributed to the writ petitioner. It is evident that
the proceedings could not be completed because the relevant records and files are not before
the authority concerned as the same are not received back from Chief Minister's Special
Vigilance Cell. There is also no finding in the extension order indicating any reason for
keeping the petitioner under suspension, other than the mere pendency of the Departmental
Proceedings. There is no finding that the petitioner may misuse his Office for influencing any
witness or tampering with any evidence either during the proceedings or in the trial. No such
finding is discernible from the extension orders passed by the authorities concerned.
17. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to uphold the extension of the
petitioner's suspension, or his continued prolonged suspension, as the grounds relied upon
Page No.# 15/15
are not found to be justifiable. The only ground cited for keeping the petitioner under
suspension is the pendency of the Departmental Proceedings, which, in turn, could not
progress due to the non-receipt of relevant records and files from the Chief Minister's
Vigilance Cell and this delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
18. Accordingly, the orders dated 15.06.2023 and 21.03.2025, therefore, stand interfered
with and set aside. The orders reviewing the suspension having been interfered with, the
suspension order dated 18.11.2022 will cease to have any effect. The petitioner shall be
reinstated in service as the extension of the suspension of the petitioner has been held to be
bad in law by the Court. Setting aside with and interference of the extension order dated
15.06.2023 will, however, not curtail the powers of the Department to invoke the residual
powers available under the provisions of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and
may pass appropriate orders on a clean slate during the pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings, if the need so arises. The petitioner shall be reinstated in his service with effect
from the date of passing of the order.
19. Writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
