Allowed

Namal Ch Daimari v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/650/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a one-year suspension order placed against a petitioner, a Lat Mandal, alleging that the relevant authority failed to review the suspension within the statutory 90-day period mandated by the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The court held that the suspension order lapsed in law and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order dated 30.06.2018 set aside; Respondent directed to reinstate petitioner; Disciplinary proceedings to be initiated and completed as per rules.

Namal Ch Daimari Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010022222020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 650/2020

¶5

1:NAMAL CH DAIMARI S/O- LATE KAMALESWAR DAIMARI, PRESENT SERVING AS LAT MANDAL(UNDER SUSPENSION), HARISINGA REVENUE CIRCLE (TANGLA), DIST- UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM R/O- VILL- DANGIGAON, P.OSOUTH BIJNI, P.S- BIJNI, DIST- CHIRANG(BTAD), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT OF PERSONNEL, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781005

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370

¶11

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HARISINGHA REVENUE CIRCLE TANGLA DEOR ROAD TANGLA DIST- UDALGURI (BTAD) ASSAM PIN- 78452

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶17

ORDER

¶18

13-02-2019

¶19

Heard Mr. Santanu Nandan Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dipankar Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mrs. Rita Boro Bora, learned Standing counsel, BTC, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

The petitioner is a Lat Mandal of Lot No. 7 in the establishment of the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, Tangla in the Udalguri District.

¶21

One Uzzal Baidya as an informant lodged an FIR against the petitioner before the officer-in-Charge of Tangla Police Station alleging that he demanded bribe from the said informant for mutation of a plot of land, which was accordingly registered as Tangla Police Station Case No. 106/20018 under Sections 409/420 IPC read with Sections 7/13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, corresponding to GR No. 635/2018. Petitioner obtained pre arrest bail in said Tangla PS Case No. 106/20018 from this Court on 25.09.2018 in AB No. 2180/2018.

¶22

The Director, Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, respondent No. 3 by Order No. BTC/DLR-226/Pt./2015/55 dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure-3) placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6 (1)(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 with immediate effect, allowing him to draw 50% subsistence allowance intimating him that his Head Quarter will be the Office of the Circle Officer, Harisinga Revenue Circle, Tangla.

¶23

By the said Order the respondent No. 3, Director of Land Records and Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar appointed one Officer as Inquiry Officer and another as Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, directing the said Inquiry Officer

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

to submit the inquiry report to him, i.e., the said respondent No. 3.

¶26

Said Uzzal Baidya, informant of Tangla PS Case No. 106/20018, wherein the petitioner has been made an accused, by swearing an affidavit before the Notary at Udalguri on 22.08.2019 stated that he does not want to proceed further with the said case against the petitioner and that he has no objection, if the petitioner is acquitted from all the charges.

¶27

Petitioner’s contention herein is that though the Director, Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, respondent No. 3, the concerned Disciplinary Authority by Order dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure-3) placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6 (1)(a) of said 1964 Rules and also appointed Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer, but till date the said Disciplinary Authority neither issued any charge memo/show cause notice to him nor reviewed his decision regarding suspension of the petitioner issued vide Order dated 30.06.2018, within 90 (ninety) days from the date of its issuance, as required.

¶28

It is submitted by the petitioner that he approached the authority concerned on number of times praying for his reinstatement in service, but they did not pay any heed to it.

¶29

Hence this writ petition by the petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned order of his suspension dated 30.06.2018 (Annexure-3) and for a direction to the respondents to re-instate him in service immediately with his all back wages w.e.f. 30.09.2018.

¶30

In support of his claim Mr. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the relevant provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and the Manual for Disciplinary Proceeding of the Government of Assam and submitted that the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner dated 30.06.2018 needs to be set aside and quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated in service forthwith.

¶31

On being enquired by the Court, Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Standing counsel BTC for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on instruction that she received from the Director, Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, respondent No. 3 vide communication No. BTC/DLR.226/Pt/2015 dated 12.02.2020 placed before the Court that since the police case is pending against the petitioner, it did not issue any show cause or charge memo to the petitioner till date and also

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

apprised the Court that after the said order of suspension of the petitioner dated 30.06.2018, it did not review the same till date. The respondents also submitted that since the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature and he is involved in the illegal act of asking/taking bribe for his official work, the suspension of the petitioner from service need not be revoked.

¶34

As per the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as well as the Manual for Disciplinary Proceeding, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Aloke Kr. Ghosal and Another, reported in 2017 (5) GLT 132, which were followed in many other cases, it is well settled that when an authority suspends its employee, the said authority must review such suspension of the employee concerned within 90 days to determine as to whether the said employee is required to be placed for further suspension or not.

¶35

In the present case as noted above, after placing the petitioner under suspension by the order dated 30.06.2018, the concerned authority, i.e., the Director, Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, respondent No. 3 did not review the same till date.

¶36

As the said respondent No. 3 did not review the suspension order of the petitioner issued by the impugned order dated 30.06.2018 on or before completion of its 90 days period, therefore, the said suspension order cannot sustain in law or remain in force after 90 days period from the date of its issuance.

¶37

For the reasons above, the impugned Order under No. BTC/DLR-226/Pt./ 2015/55 dated 30.06.2018 issued by the Director of Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, respondent No. 3 (Annexure-3), being not sustainable in law, is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶38

The respondents in the Director of Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, shall reinstate the petitioner as Lot Mandal or any other equivalent post forthwith and on his such reinstatement in service, may post him in other place under him, as it may deem fit and proper.

¶39

However, it is made clear that the respondents in the Directorate of Land Records & Surveys, BTC, Kokrajhar, may initiate and complete the Disciplinary Proceeding against the

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

petitioner, in terms of the provisions prescribed in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

¶42

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent above.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Namal Ch Daimari v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namal Ch Daimari v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Sudhangshu Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abdul Razzak Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rejan Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Satyendra Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Bhrigu Thakuria Vs the State Information Commissioner and 9 Ors.

Hemlata Dwivedi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.