Allowed

Mahesh Ch. Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2022WP(C)/4225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside a suspension order against an Excise Inspector ending an eight-year suspension where departmental proceedings concluded without a final order. The Court also directed payment of subsistence allowance for the suspension period.

What did the court decide?

Reinstated in service and directed authorities to pay subsistence allowance within fifteen days.

Mahesh Ch. Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010092342022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4225/2022

¶5

MAHESH CH. GOSWAMI S/O- NAGEN CH. GOSWAMI, R/O-MBAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-781021, NEAR NO.1 MILANPUR MASZID, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶8

2:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶9

3:THE COMISSIONER OF EXCISE GOVT OF ASSAM

¶10

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE GOSSAIGAON ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EXCISE DEPTT.

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

01.08.2022

¶17

Heard Mr. B Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. MD Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 being the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and Mr. N Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 being the authorities in the Excise Department of the Government of Assam.

¶18

The petitioner, who is an Inspector of Excise in the Excise Department, was placed under suspension by an order dated 22.05.2014 of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Excise Department. A reading of the order of suspension dated 22.05.2014 makes it discernible that the allegation against the petitioner was that he was unauthorizedly absent from the Headquarter at Gosaigaon from 16.09.2011, without any intimation to the higher authorities and without submitting any application for leave.

¶19

It is the stand of the petitioner that during the period he was suffering from severe cervical spondilities because of which he submitted application for extension of leave. As the petitioner was advised complete bed rest, he could not personally go to the authorities for submission of the leave application. The petitioner also relies on certain medical documents including ex-ray etc to show that he had in fact been suffering from severe cervical spondilities.

¶20

Be that as it may, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the show cause notice dated 12.11.2018 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short Rules of 1964). It is stated by Mr. B Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the departmental

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

proceeding had been completed, but no final order thereon had been passed on the petitioner.

¶23

Mr. N Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the Department does not dispute the said submission that the departmental proceeding otherwise had been completed other than passing of the final order thereon.

¶24

In this writ petition, the order of suspension dated 22.05.2014 is assailed.

¶25

We have taken note that the petitioner is under suspension for more than eight years. Suspension under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1964 can be made on the drawal of departmental proceeding or on contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Once the departmental proceeding is otherwise over other than passing of the final order, the authority to place a person under suspension under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1964 apparently does not appear to exist any further. Further, suspension is to facilitate to prevent the delinquent employee from interfering, tempering or otherwise threatening any witness in the proposed departmental proceeding.

¶26

As that stage of the departmental proceeding is over, from such point of view also it can be said that the order of suspension is no longer required. Accordingly, the order of suspension dated 22.05.2014 against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner be forthwith reinstated in service.

¶27

It is stated that for the suspended period, the petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance.

¶28

Under the law, it is mandatory for the departmental authority to pay at least the subsistence allowance to a delinquent employee when he is placed under suspension. As the legal right of the petitioner has been violated because of the non payment of the subsistence allowance, we direct the authorities in

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

the Excise Department to pay the subsistence allowance for the entire suspended period within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

However, this order shall not in any manner either influence or be construed to be a bar in passing any final order in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner that was initiated as per the show cause notice dated 12.11.2018.

¶32

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Mahesh Ch. Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Ch. Goswami 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizam Uddin Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jayanta Kr. Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Punnu Kumari Vs Sanjay Mitra and 3 Ors.

Smt. Rina Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ranjit Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bhaskarjyoti Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.