Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010259682024 2025:GAU-AS:1103 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3844/2024 THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT (PERSONNEL A), ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR GHY- 781006. 2: SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR-781006. 3: SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR PIN- 781006 ASSA VERSUS BHUPESH CH DAS S/O- SRI GIRISH CH. DAS, R/O- HOUSE NO. 2, NAVADOY NAGAR PATH, GHORAMARA, GUWAHATI-781028, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DIPANKAR NATH Sr. GA, ASSAM, Advocate for the Respondent : MR B K MISHRA, MR. K N CHOUDHURY,MR. D J DAS Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 09.01.2025 Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent. By way of this application, the State respondent is seeking extension of time for concluding the departmental proceeding as directed by this Court by judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 1053/2024. I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and also perused the averments made in support of the prayer sought for. It appears from the averments made in the application that the State Government is unable to conclude the departmental proceeding within the time period granted by this Court earlier and accordingly has filed this application, seeking extension of further three months’ time to conclude the departmental proceeding for the grounds stated in the Interlocutory Application. Pertinent to refer to para 33 and 34 of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by this Court as follows:- “33. As noted above, in the present case, the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the departmental case and the charge before the Criminal Court against the petitioner are also one and the same. The listed witnesses in the departmental case were examined in the criminal case and the Criminal Court upon examination of such witnesses has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner/accused had Page No.# 3/4 demanded illegal gratification form the informant. That being so, in the considered opinion of this Court, further continuation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is wholly unfair and unjustified. 34. Accordingly, this Court deems appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, in the interest of justice, by directing the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding which is pending against the petitioner in accordance with law by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the Court’s order.” A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs indicates that though the Criminal Court has acquitted the respondent for the same set of charges, the departmental proceeding has not been concluded by the State Government and accordingly this Court directed the State Government to conclude the departmental proceeding, which is pending against the respondent in accordance with law by keeping in mind the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of the said judgment and order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Court’s order. It appears that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024, the respondent has taken the necessary steps for appointing an Enquiry Officer from the penal prepared by the Personnel Department. It further appears that the respondents are moving slowly in the smatter. Before adverting to dispose of the matter, this Court on 08.01.2024 requested Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate to apprise this Court as regards the reasonable time within which the direction passed by this Court should be complied with. Today, when the matter was called for, Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate submits on instructions that a further period of three Page No.# 4/4 months would be required to conclude the departmental proceeding. It appears that the departmental proceeding against the respondent is pending for a long time despite conclusion of the criminal trial resulting acquittal of the respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, the further period of three months in the context of the present case appears to be unreasonable and as such direct the State respondent to conclude the departmental proceeding, as directed earlier by this Court, strictly within a period of 1(one) month from today, failing which, adverse consequences in accordance with law shall, if required, be faced with. Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant