Allowed

Y. Daniel v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC22 Oct 2019WP(C)/53/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes and sets aside a two-year-old suspension order against a Junior Education Officer issued due to pending criminal investigation. The court allowed the petition, leading to the petitioner's reinstatement with pay.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of suspension order dated 06.10.2017; direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner immediately and pay back pay and allowances.

Y. Daniel Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020001472019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 53/2019

¶5

1:Y. DANIEL

¶6

S/O LT. YIRHUMO KITHAN,

¶7

R/O YIKHUM VILLAGE, WOKHA DISTRICT, WORKING AS JUNIOR EDUCATION OFFICER, WOKHA, UNDER THE DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, N/L

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF N/L, KOHIMA

¶11

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF N/L KOHIMA

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR

¶13

DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION N/L DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION N/L KOHIM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHO

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 22-10-2019

¶20

Heard Mr. Akin Risom, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

¶21

The petitioner who was serving as Junior Education Officer under the Office of the District Education Officer, Wokha was suspended by an order issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, vide order No. DSE/CSS/IEDSS/24/2015(Pt) dated 06.10.2017, under Rule-6(1)(a) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 on the ground that there was a pending criminal investigation against him. Thereafter, no order extending the suspension period of the petitioner was ever issued by the respondents. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court praying that the suspension order may be quashed and set aside in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury –versus - Union of India & Another , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 .

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the suspension order was issued, two years has passed, therefore, the suspension order can no longer be sustained in the light of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case mentioned above. The learned counsel further submitted that following the same principle of law, this Court had quashed and set aside the order of suspension of the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 184(K) of 2018 & W.P.(C) No. 185(K) of 2018. Therefore, in the case of the petitioner also this Court may quash and set aside the suspension order. He also further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 5(K) of 2019 had upheld the decision of the Single Bench passed in the above stated case as such, there is nothing much to argue anymore on the principle of law.

¶23

Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

State respondents conceded to the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner.

¶26

I have pursued the judgments & orders referred to by the learned counsel which were passed by the learned Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court. It appears from the judgments that the facts and circumstances in those cases and in the instant case are similar, therefore, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is well covered by those judgments. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed and accordingly, the impugned suspension order dated 06.10.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall re-instate the petitioner forthwith and pay his pay and allowances as per law.

¶27

Writ petition stands disposed

¶28

Sd/- JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Y. Daniel v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Daniel v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tsalimong Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Iloka K. Shohe and 49 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

L.Hatam Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Imtionen and Anr. Vs Menukhol John,Ias

Pfulhoutsu Angami Vs Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs Temjen Toy and 3 Ors.