Allowed

Rajdip Nath v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jan 2020WP(C)/9031/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court quashed Notification No. CooP.116/2018/4.(eCF52422) and Office Order No. CooP.116/2018/4.(eCF52422) dated 04.01.2020, which suspended the petitioner, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, beyond the 90-day review period mandated by the Assam Services (Disciplinary & Appeals) Rules, 1964. The court directed immediate reinstatement of the petitioner and completion of disc

What did the court decide?

The impugned Notification dated 12.01.2018 and the Office Order dated 04.01.2020 continuing suspension were set aside and quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated immediately, and discipl

Rajdip Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010293062019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 9031/2019

¶5

1:RAJDIP NATH

¶6

S/O. SRI MADHAB CHANDRA NATH, PERMANENT R/O. BATORHAT, RAJAPUKHURI, BAJAYNAGAR UNDER BIJAYNAGAR P.S., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SURVEY BELTOLA PATH HOUSE NO.7, GUWAHATI-781028, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM COOPERATION DEPTT., GUWAHATI-06.

¶9

2:THE SECRETARY OF GOVT. OF ASSAM CO-OPERATION DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06.

¶10

3:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GUWAHATI ASSAM GHY.-02

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

07.01.2020

¶17

Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dipty Shikha Neog, learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department appearing for all the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶18

The petitioner, namely, Rajdeep Nath, District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies serving under the Cooperation Department of the State, while posted at Chirang district, was arrested on 29.12.2017 in connection with Special Vigilance Cell Police Station (SVCPS, in short) Case No. 01/2016 under Sections 120B/409/ 420 of the IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was detained in custody for more than 48 hours. Later by an order dated 01.02.2018 passed in Bail Application No. 135/2018 this Court released him on bail in said SVCPS Case No. 01/2016.

¶19

As the petitioner was arrested in said SVCPS Case No. 01/2016 and detained in custody for more than 48 hours, the respondents in the Cooperation Department, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Disciplinary & Appeals) Rules, 1964, by Notification No. CooP.116/2018/ 4.(eCF52422) dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure-III) suspended the petitioner from service w.e.f. the date of his arrest i.e., since 29.12.2017 until further orders.

¶20

After his released on bail on 01.02.2018 in SVCPS Case No. 01/2016, the petitioner 16.05.2018 submitted a representation before the Secretary of the Cooperation Department of the State, respondent No. 2, for his reinstatement in service but it was not considered.

¶21

The respondents in the Cooperation Department of the State on 25.07.2018 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 9 of said 1964 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, along with the charges framed against him, statements of allegations, list of documents and list of witnesses, asking him to show cause as to why any

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of said 1964 Rules, should not be inflicted upon him.

¶24

On 30.07.2018, the petitioner submitted an application before the authorities in the Cooperation Department for inspection of the documents, which was allowed by order dated 23.08.2018.

¶25

By an order dated 11.12.2018, learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 06/2018 arising out of said SVCPS Case No. 01/2016, in which the petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2017, framed charges under Section 120(B)/409 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶26

As required under the law and settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, and the relevant provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as well as the Manual for Disciplinary Proceeding of the Government of Assam, since the respondents in the Cooperation Department within 90 (ninety) days did not review his suspension from date of placing him under it, the petitioner contended that the impugned Notification of suspension of the petitioner dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure-III) being not reviewed within the said stipulated period, needs to be set aside and quashed and he should be reinstated in service forthwith.

¶27

Earlier by an order dated 06.12.2019 the respondents in the Cooperation Department were directed to apprise the Court as to when it reviewed the order of suspension of the petitioner. Today, Ms. Neog, learned Standing Counsel, placed written instructions dated 04.01.2020 of the respondents in the Cooperation Department stating that the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 12.01.2018 was given effect from 29.12.2017 (i.e., date of arrest of the petitioner) and it was reviewed on 04.01.2020, which is much after the stipulated period of 90 days of placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶28

As the respondents did not review the order of suspension of the petitioner issued vide Notification dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure-III) on completion of the period of 90 days, said suspension of the petitioner is not tenable in law as it cannot remain in force after completion of said period of 90 days.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned Notification No. CooP.116/2018/4.(eCF52422) dated

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

12.01.2018 dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure-III) issued by the Cooperative Department, Government of Assam (Annexure-III to the writ petition) being not sustainable in law, is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶32

Consequently, the Office Order No. CooP.116/2018/4.(eCF52422) dated 04.01.2020 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Cooperation Department whereby it continued the suspension of the petitioner issued earlier on 12.01.2018 also not being sustainable in law, is also set aside and quashed.

¶33

The respondents in the Co-operation Department shall reinstate the petitioner as Deputy Registrar or any equivalent post under the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Co-operation Department forthwith. However, it is up to the respondents in the Cooperation Department to decide regarding the posting of the petitioner on his reinstatement in service.

¶34

It is also observed that the respondents in the Co-operation Department shall complete the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the petitioner, in terms of the aforementioned show cause notice dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition), at an early date in accordance with law and the petitioner shall participate in the said proceeding for its early completion.

¶35

Written instruction of the respondents in the Co-operation Department placed before the Court today by Ms. D.S. Neog, learned Standing counsel be kept as a part of the record.

¶36

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Rajdip Nath v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdip Nath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimal Sinha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sailesh Chandra Malakar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jayanta Das and 4 Ors. Vs the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Smt. Renu Borkotoky Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Brojen Borah and 3 Ors. Vs Ashotosh Agnihotri and 2 Ors.

Banajit Deka and 40 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.