Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010029622024 2026:GAU-AS:12172 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1004/2024 NRIPENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE BASISTHA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL.- BATAHGHULI, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI, P.O. PANJABARI UNDER NONNMATI PS, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT ASSAM KHANAPARA GHY-22 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM,MS N KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, A.H and V. DEPT.,MS M KATAKI Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 24/08/2026 Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. N Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Kataki, learned Standing counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularization of his period of suspension, w.e.f. 20.04.2002 to 19.12.2011. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under. The petitioner, while working as an Upper Division Assistant in the Directorate of Dairy Development, Assam, was implicated in a criminal proceeding with regard to misappropriation of amounts of the Directorate. The petitioner was placed under arrest in connection with the said criminal proceedings instituted against him. The petitioner on being placed under arrest, was consequently placed under suspension by the Director, Dairy Development, Assam, vide an order dated 20.04.2002. Thereafter, vide a Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2002, a departmental proceeding came to be so instituted against the petitioner, basing on the allegation of having misappropriated amounts belonging to the Directorate. The petitioner had submitted his representation in the matter, however, not being satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his said representation, an enquiry came to be directed to be held in the matter. Page No.# 3/8 The suspension of the petitioner being prolonged, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2452/2011. This Court, vide order dated 02.12.2011, noticing that the suspension of the petitioner, had continued for long 10 years, proceeded to interfere with the same and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in his services. However, it was clarified that the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner shall proceed and the respondents were required to complete the same expeditiously. In pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2011, the Director, Dairy Development, Assam, vide order dated 20.12.2011, proceeded to reinstate the petitioner in his services. The departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner was continued with and the Enquiry Officer appointed in the matter, submitted his enquiry report on 21.07.2012, in the matter. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, the petitioner retired from his services, w.e.f. 29.02.2012, on reaching the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules of 1969), proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, vide order dated 20.02.2013, a penalty of withholding of the DCRG and Leave Encashment benefits of the petitioner. The order dated 20.02.2013, was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 438/2015. Page No.# 4/8 This Court vide order dated 21.08.2018, noticing that the Enquiry Officer appointed for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner was also a co- accused with the petitioner in the criminal proceedings so instituted in the matter, proceeded to set aside the Enquiry Report dated 21.07.2012, as well as the order of penalty dated 20.02.2013. However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to proceed with the proceeding instituted against the petitioner, by appointing an appropriate officer as the Enquiry Officer and to bring the proceeding to its logical end. It is seen that the respondent authorities had not proceeded to conduct a de novo enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2018 in WP(C) No. 438/2015. The petitioner being aggrieved by the non-authorization to him of his pension and pensionary benefits, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1476/2022. This Court noticing that the petitioner had already superannuated from his services on 29.02.2012, by reckoning the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, proceeded to hold that no such enquiry would now be permissible to be so instituted against the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to process the pension of the petitioner under the provisions of the Rules of 1969, as per law and to bring the same to its logical end, within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, thereafter, vide order dated 27.12.2022, complying with the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 25.11.2022, directed for processing of the pension and other pensionary Page No.# 5/8 matters of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1969 (SIC 1969). The petitioner has projected that the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner has since been authorized to the petitioner. However, the period of suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.04.2002 to 19.12.2011 has not been regularized as on duty and the salaries of the petitioner for the said period has not been released to him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. As noticed hereinabove, in pursuance to the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner, who had in the meanwhile, superannuated from his services, was imposed with a penalty, invoking the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, by withholding of his DCRG and Leave Encashment entitlements. However, the said penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 20.02.2013, was interfered with by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 in WP(C) No. 438/2015. A liberty, however, was granted by this Court to the respondent authorities to proceed de novo enquiry against the petitioner, herein. 6. From the materials brought on record, it is seen that the respondents had not proceeded against the petitioner by instituting a de novo enquiry in the matter proximate to the time of passing of the said judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 in WP(C) No. 438/2015. 7. It is further noticed by this Court that the petitioner had again approached Page No.# 6/8 this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1476/2022 and this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022, noticing that the petitioner had already retired from his services w.e.f. 29.02.2012, on reaching the age of superannuation, had proceeded to hold that a de novo enquiry against the petitioner would now not be permissible to be instituted, in view of the express bar in this connection under the provisions of Rule 21 of Rules of 1969. It was further directed that the respondent authorities shall authorize to the petitioner his pension and pensionary benefits. The directions passed by this Court vide the said order dated 25.11.2022, is found to have been complied with by the respondent authorities vide issuance of an order dated 27.12.2022, wherein, the Director, Dairy Development Department, Assam, had directed for release to the petitioner his pension and pensionary benefits. 8. The issue arising in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner for the period of suspension undergone by him, would be entitled to his due salaries and/or the said period is now to be so limited to the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner. The period of suspension undergone by a delinquent, pending conclusion of departmental/criminal proceedings instituted against him is to be so determined, basing on the outcome of such proceedings instituted against him. 9. In the present case, it is submitted at the bar that the petitioner was already acquitted in the criminal proceedings instituted against him. In the departmental proceedings so instituted against the petitioner, this Court finds that in view of the directions passed by this Court, noticed hereinabove, the penalty imposed against the petitioner stood interfered with and thereafter, no fresh proceedings was instituted against the petitioner and no fresh order of Page No.# 7/8 penalty was so imposed upon him. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was not justified by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the period of suspension of the petitioner would have to be now deemed to be on duty for all intent and purpose. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to his salaries for the period of his suspension, w.e.f. 20.04.2002 to 19.12.2011. The respondent authorities would now compute the salaries, receivable by the petitioner for the period of his suspension w.e.f. 20.04.2002 to 19.12.2011 and by reckoning the increments, annual increments, revision of pay, if any, coming into operation during the said period, release to the petitioner his arrears of salaries, after deducting the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The said exercise be initiated and concluded by the Director of Dairy Development, Assam, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. It is further clarified that within the said period of 4 (four) months, the computation, along with the release of the arrears of pay, so working out in favour of the petitioner, has to be released to him. 13. In the event, the amount so directed, is not released to the petitioner, within the period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the said amount shall carry an interest @6% from the date the same was due and the amount of interest so added to the salaries now due to the petitioner, shall be recovered by the respondent authorities from the defaulting officers. Page No.# 8/8 14. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant