Mr Baneswar Das Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 [the Battadev University, Bajali].

¶23

2 . The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the continued suspension of the petitioner and the inaction of the respondent authorities in revoking the suspension despite his acquittal in the criminal case on the basis of which the suspension had been ordered.

¶24

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Grade-IV employee in Bajali College under the Higher Education Department and joined service on 16.09.2000. His service was subsequently confirmed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam vide order dated 14.11.2002.

¶25

4. While the petitioner was in service, a complaint was lodged on 20.04.2016

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

by one Shri Prasanta Kakati before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had secured Government employment by using forged documents. Pursuant thereto, Patharkuchi P.S. Case No. 232/2016 was registered under Sections 420/466/468/471 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and remained in custody for more than forty-eight hours. Consequently, he was placed under suspension with effect from 12.01.2017 pending departmental action. The suspension was subsequently approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam vide order dated 30.01.2017.

¶28

5. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 420/466/468/471 of the IPC, and the case proceeded to trial. However, by judgment and order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bajali, Pathsala in P.R.C. Case No. 121/2022, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges. The learned Trial Court recorded that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations against the accused.

¶29

6. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, following his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a letter of intimation dated 17.03.2025 before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, enclosing a copy of the judgment of acquittal and requesting revocation of the suspension order, reinstatement in service, and release of the consequential service benefits. However, no decision has yet been taken by the competent authority on the said representation/letter of intimation.

¶30

7. The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension order, reinstate the petitioner in service, and release all admissible service benefits.

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the continuation of the suspension despite the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case is arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when no departmental proceeding is stated to be pending against him.

¶33

9 . On the other hand, Mr. Tahabildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education submits that although the Director of Higher Education had earlier directed initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the records presently available do not disclose whether any such proceeding was, in fact, initiated. It is, therefore, submitted that the competent authority may be permitted to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶34

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

¶35

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension primarily on account of the criminal case registered against him. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has since been acquitted by the competent criminal court. At the same time, the records presently placed before this Court do not clearly indicate whether any departmental proceeding was initiated or is presently pending against the petitioner.

¶36

12. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration by the competent authority in the light of the petitioner's acquittal and the relevant service rules governing suspension and departmental proceedings.

¶37

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

respondent authority, more particularly the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to examine the petitioner's representation/letter of intimation dated 17.03.2025 and ascertain whether any departmental proceeding has been initiated or is pending against him. Upon such examination, the competent authority shall take a reasoned decision regarding the continuation or revocation of the suspension, reinstatement of the petitioner, and the treatment of the suspension period, strictly in accordance with law.

¶40

14. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶41

15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Mr Baneswar Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Baneswar Das v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ncd Sr Secondary School Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti Seema Mazumdar Saikia @ Sima Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Padmeswar Borah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Iman Ali Ahmed and Ors. Vs Narayan Konwar, IAS

Jutika Boro Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.