Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26569 (GAU)

RIMA CHETRI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

WP(C)/6323/2025 · 2025-12-02

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010245162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6323/2025 RIMA CHETRI W/O- MONJURAL HAQUE MAZUMDAR, RESIDENT OF CONVENT ROAD, HAFLONG, P.O.- HAFLONG, DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN-788819. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW) ASSAM SWASTHYA BHAWAN HENGERABARI GUWAHATI- 36 3:THE N.C. HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HAFLONG DIMA HASAO PIN- 788819 4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES DIMA HASAO HAFLONG DIMA HASAO PIN-788819 5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER GUNJUNG BLOCK PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE Page No.# 2/3 GUNJUNG DIMA HASAO PIN- 788832 6:THE SENIOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER UMRANGSHO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE DIMA HASAO PIN-788931 7:THE IN-CHARGE OF OF GUNJUNG BLOCK PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE GUNJUNG DIMA HASAO PIN- 78883 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, A. ADO,MS L HMAR,MR K KASHYAB,MR. K KALITA,MR. B BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, SC, D H A COUNCIL BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 03.12.2025 Heard Ms. A Ado, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the suspension order dated 07.09.2024 issued by the Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (FW) Halflong, Dima Hasao, whereby, the petitioner was placed under suspension. It is stated at the Bar that the competent authority has imposed penalty of withholding three annual increments on the basis of enquiry committee, which appears to be a conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Having considered above, I am of the view that the writ petition has become infructuous in view of imposition of penalty by the competent authority to the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. Needless to observe that on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings resultant in imposition of penalty, the suspension order is deemed inoperative. JUDGE Comparing Assistant