Allowed

Prabhat Narzary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/6801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Gauhati considered a writ petition challenging a government employees suspension order. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court set aside the suspension for inaction on departmental proceedings and directed reinstatement with certain restrictions on file access and transfers.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 29.08.2019 set aside; petitioner directed to be reinstated into service; liberty granted to transfer petitioner; petitioner barred from dealing with investigation files.

Prabhat Narzary Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010216352022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6801/2022

¶5

PRABHAT NARZARY

¶6

S/O- SRI GHASHIRAM NARZARY, R/O- VILL. SIDLI, P.O. SIDLI, P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 783393.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BTC, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370.

¶9

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶10

4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SEVICES BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CHIRANG

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

KAJALGAON BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783385

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BHUYAN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

03.11.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner prays for setting aside the suspension order dated 29.08.2019 and for reinstating him into service, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 .

¶20

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had been arrested on 23.06.2019, in a case registered under Section 9/29/44/49B/51 of the Wild Life Protection At, 1972 and he was released on bail on 14.08.2019. The petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.06.2019, vide order dated 29.08.2019.

¶21

The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra), charge-sheet has to be filed in the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

criminal case within 3 (three) months and/or departmental proceeding has to be initiated within three months from the date of the suspension order, failing which the currency of the suspension order cannot be extended. Further, the Apex Court has held that even if charge-sheet is filed in the criminal case and/or departmental proceeding is initiated within three months, the respondents would have to pass a reasoned order for the suspension to be extended.

¶24

Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner till date. He also submits that no review of the suspension order has been undertaken by the respondents, for extension of the petitioner’s suspension.

¶25

On considering the fact that there is nothing to show as to whether any charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal case against the petitioner till today, it is presumed that no charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal case. Further, in view of the fact that no departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioner and no review of the suspension order has been undertaken by the State respondents, the suspension of the petitioner cannot continue, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra).

¶26

In view of the reasons stated above, the order dated 29.08.2019 cannot be operational any longer. Accordingly, the petitioner’s suspension is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, liberty is given to the State respondents to transfer the petitioner to any of it’s offices within the State, so as to sever any local or personal contact

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

he may have with any person, who may be involved in the investigation against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner may be barred from dealing with files connected with the investigation of the case, till the time of preparation of his written statement of defence or filing of the charge-sheet.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Prabhat Narzary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Narzary v. the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 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

Sewali Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pallav Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Lut Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam Vs Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 Ors.

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam Vs Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 Ors.

Bijuli Das Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.