Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010224642024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5602/2024 SUNIL DOLEY S/O INDESWAR DOLEY, RESIDENT OF KARICHUK, KULAPATHAR, PO ARADHAL PS AND DIST DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO TH GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR ASSAM 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PW(B AND NH) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD(BUILDING) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD KARIMGANJ DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION KARIMGAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR P H KONWAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 29.05 .2026 Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD Department. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents for reinstatement of his service after being suspended by the order dated 09.01.2024. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer under the Public Works Building & National Highway Department under the Kokrajhar Building Division. Subsequently, he was transferred to various places. While he was serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) PWD, Dhemaji Territorial Building Sub-Division in respect of acquisition of land for construction of State Highway under the “Assam Mala” projects the compensation claimed by the land owners/occupiers was released through him. The department having noticed anomalies in respect of the amounts released through the petitioner a show cause notice dated 02.11.2023 was issued against the writ petitioner. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner being Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 149/2023 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/409 IPC. In connection with the said case, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail. As the petitioner was taken into custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964. 3. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice issued by the Page No.# 3/8 respondent Department. However, the proceedings were not completed nor his application seeking for reinstatement was taken into account. The petitioner has received the subsistence allowance as per the Rules. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.01.2024 with effect from the date of his detention i.e. 15.12.2023, pending finalization of the departmental proceeding drawn against him. All his dues as permissible under the Rule, subsistence allowance, etc., have been released. However, the departmental proceedings were not concluded and according to the petitioner his case was not reviewed as required under the Rule. 4. The respondents have contested the case of the petitioner by filing their necessary affidavit. In their affidavit, there is a clear averment that the order of suspension of the petitioner was reviewed and extended vide order dated 03.04.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the mandate laid down in the judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. The Union of India and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 was not followed, the petitioner's suspension is required to be interfered with and he ought to be reinstated in his place of posting. 6. As permitted by the Court on earlier dates, the respondents have now placed before the Court a report received from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, where the quantification pecuniary loss caused to the State has been quantified as Rs.1,17,37,631.68/- as the amount which according to the Department was a loss suffered by the State/Department Page No.# 4/8 because of excess release of compensation amount by the petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Executive Engineer. 7. A copy of the said instruction is placed before the Court and is kept as a part of the case record. 8. The prayer made in the writ petition is for setting aside of the suspension order dated 09.01.2024 by which the writ petitioner was kept under suspension. 9. As per Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1964, the Government servants may be kept under suspension under the following circumstances: “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; Page No.# 5/8 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. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rule and the case is remitted for further inquiry or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) Where penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the Page No.# 6/8 date of the original order of the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under these rules may at any time be revoked by the Authority, which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any Authority to which that Authority is subordinate.” 10. Rule 6(1)(a) provides that where disciplinary proceeding against him/her is contemplated or is pending, the officer may be placed under suspension. 11. Under Rule 6(2) a person who is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period of more than 48 hours shall be deemed to be suspended with effect from the date of his detention. 12. The departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the report has also been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, which now quantifies the amount of loss stated to have been caused by the petitioner. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner culminated in submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer. However, the final order required to be passed by the disciplinary authority has not been passed. 13. The learned counsel for the State respondents now submits that in view of the report received from the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji the department will proceed to pass appropriate orders as per the provision of law. 14. While it is correct that a delinquent officer cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period without initiating any proceedings against Page No.# 7/8 him or her, but in the facts of the present case, the proceedings were already initiated by the show cause notice dated 02.11.2023. Thereafter, in view of the petitioner being taken into custody, he was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 09.01.2024. 15. The averments made in the affidavit filed by the respondent that the suspension has been stood reviewed and extended vide the order dated 03.04.2024, which has also not been disputed by the petitioner by any additional affidavit. While suspension is not termed as a punishment, nevertheless keeping an officer indefinitely under suspension is bound to have adverse effects on the morale of the delinquent officer. In Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), the Apex Court at Para No.22 had held as under: “22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, 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” 16. However, in the facts of the present case, the findings of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) perhaps are not specifically applicable in view of the fact that the departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner. The only question is the delay that has occurred in taking the departmental proceedings to its logical end by passing appropriate orders either of acquittal or any punishment major or minor as may be considered fit to be imposed on the petitioner. Ordinarily, the Court would have been inclined to issue a specific direction for initiation of departmental proceedings. However, in Page No.# 8/8 the face of the facts pleaded, the departmental proceedings have already been initiated and the matter was pending before the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders, as the quantification of loss stated to have been caused by the petitioner was not received from the concerned Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, when the petitioner was posted as a Assistant Executive Engineer and when the amounts found to have been released by the petitioner towards compensation had exceeded the lawful amount that ought to have been released to the claimants. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the suspension order at this stage considering that the proceedings have already been held against the writ petitioner. However, the law laid down in the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Prem Nath Bali vs Reg.,High Court Of Delhi & Anr. reported in 2015 (16) SCC 415, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry against the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant