Allowed

Krishna Kanta Pathak v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2020WP(C)/5100/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension as an District Agriculture Officer. The court held that the suspension order was invalid because the memorandum of charges was not served within the mandated three-month period under Ajay Kumar Choudhary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of suspension dated 06.05.2020 was quashed. The disciplinary proceeding shall continue following the show cause notice issued on 05.12.2020.

Krishna Kanta Pathak Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010170762020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5100/2020

¶5

KRISHNA KANTA PATHAK S/O- LT. GAJENDRA NATH PATHAK, R/O- KRISHNA NAGAR, WARD NO. 14, BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, 781301, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM-CUMAGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

¶8

2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AGRICULTURE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06

¶9

3:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GHY-2

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 07.12.2020

¶16

Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. A. Chetry, Advocate as well as Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel representing all the respondents.

¶17

Mr. Choudhury has obtained instructions in the matter.

¶18

The petitioner is serving as in-charge District Agriculture Officer at Barpeta. In the said capacity, he was placed under suspension by order dated 06.05.2020 under sub-Rule 1 (a) of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, pending drawal of departmental proceedings. The said order of suspension is put to challenge primarily on ground that the memorandum of charges/charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months thereafter, which is a requirement as mandated in paragraph 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -Vs- Union of India and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

¶19

Mr. Choudhury, on the other hand, submits that the order of suspension dated 06.05.2020 was extended by subsequent orders dated 29.07.2020 and 31.10.2020 and, eventually on 05.12.2020, show cause notice has also been issued upon the petitioner.

¶20

It is seen that although the suspension order came to be extended on 29.07.2020 and 31.10.2020 and also show cause notice issued on 05.12.2020, the inescapable fact is that the memorandum of charges/charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner within 3 (three) months from the date of suspension. The orders of extension dated 29.07.2020 and 31.10.2020 would serve no purpose, inasmuch as, ratio in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) at paragraph 21 projects that extension of a suspension order can be caused but only after the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served within 3 (three) months from the date of the order of suspension. This is not so in the present case.

¶21

On the legal prescription propounded in paragraph 21 in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), there can be other option but to make interference with the impugned order of

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

suspension dated 06.05.2020, which is accordingly done.

¶24

The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, following the show cause notice dated 05.12.2020, shall now be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Needless to say that in terms of paragraph 21 in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the State respondent would be free to transfer the petitioner by maintaining his official position.

¶25

Writ petition stands accordingly allowed.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Krishna Kanta Pathak v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kanta Pathak v. the State of Assam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

JC-361505L Naib Subedar/Clerk Md. Giasuddin Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

NO.5/355752 H Hav/Orl Sri Diganta Barman Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mukuta Kro Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gayatri Roy Barman Vs the Commissioner

Harsha Vardhan Kashyap Vs the State of Assam and 17 Ors.

Ranjan Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.