Also he ard Mr.U.K.goswami learned Standing Counsel v. No.3. None appeared on behalf

Considering the grievance raised in the writ petition and as agreed to b y the learned counsel appearing for the parties this writ petition is disposed o f at the admission stage itself. The petitioner’s case in brief is summarised herein below: The petitioner was working as senior Lecturer of Political Science in Dh akuakhana College, Dhakuakhana in the district of North Lakhimpur. While serving as such on 25.8.2008 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of complaint received from the Borders of Girls Hostel and Boys Hostel, Students’ Union, Teachers Unit of Dhakuakhana College etc. on the allegation that the pet itioner was in adultery with an ex-student. The petitioner was also held respo nsible for issuing incriminating statement in daily Newspaper creating law and o rder problem and drawing sentiment of the students and teacher staffs. Consequently show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted h is reply denying the allegations that has been made against him in the show caus e notice . On being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority for plac ing the petitioner under suspension and not completing the enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down, the petitioner preferred a writ application befor e this court being WP(C) No. 4604/2008 and this court vide order dated 7.11.20 08 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the proceeding against th e petitioner shall stand concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Rule s governing the matter and within a period of four months from the date of recei pt of a certified copy thereof. In the meanwhile in the departmental proceedin g initiated against the petitioner, the Governing Body took a resolution to dism iss the petitioner from service and the said resolution was communicated to the Director of Higher Education for approval. However, after careful examination of the materials sent to respondent no.2 by the College authority, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 2.2.2009 informed the Principal of the college i.e. respo ndent No.4 that the proposal cannot be accepted as it was found from the record that the delinquent Lecturer had neither been given reasonable opportunity for s elf-defence nor he had been heard in person as provided in the Assam Services (D iscipline And Appeal) Rules,1964 (1964 Rules for short). Therefore, the resoluti on no.2 dated 20.9.08 adopted by the Governing Body in respect of dismissal /dis charge from service of the petitioner as Lecturer from the college could not be considered for approval. The respondent no.4 was directed by respondent no.2 to draw a fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner as per the 1964 Rule s. It was further directed to request the S.D.O(Civil), Dhakuakhana i.e. respond ent No.3 to act as an Enquiry Officer and the Principal of the college to act as an Presenting Officer with a further request to complete the departmental proc eeding within a period of 30(thirty) days and place the same before the Governin g Body for proper decision and thereafter forward the said decision to responde nt no.4 for necessary action. Upon receipt of the aforesaid letter, the respondent no.4 vide communica tion-dated 7.3.2009 made a request to the respondent no.2 for extension of time for completion of the process of drawl of Departmental proceeding against the pe titioner. The cause shown for extension of time was Lok Sabha election, 2009, th e final examination under Assam Higher Secondary Education Council as well as th e examination under Dibrugarh University which was started w.e.f. 20.2.2009 and 24.2.2009 respectively and under that circumstances respondent no.4 requested to extend the time by two months i.e. upto May 15th, 2009 for drawal as well as co mpletion of departmental proceeding. Upon receipt of the aforesaid communication the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 6.5.2009 directed the respondent No.4 to complete the enquiry within 15.5.2009 without any further delay. The letter date d 6.5.2009 of respondent no.2 is quoted hereunder: (cid:28)GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, Guwahati No.G(B)AC.155/2008/167 Dated,Kahilipara the 6.5.2009 From To : Sri D.Hussain,AES, Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati19. The Principal, Dhakuakhana College P.O.Dhakuakhana, District Lakhimpur Sub. EXTENSION OF TIME This office under Memo No. G(B).AC.155 /2006 /61, Dated 18.9/2008 and G Ref. (B) CC.155/2000/158,Dated 02.02.2009 and your letter No.DKC/Estt./HE/09-417 date d 7.3.2009 Sir With reference to the letters on the subject cited above, I have the hon our to state that on the basis of the Govt.letter No.AHE.253/2008/28, dated 11.9 .2008 and Governing Body’s Resolution No.1, dated 25.8.2008 regarding suspensi on of Sri Dulumoni Borthakur, Sr.Lecturer in the department of Political Science of your College was approved vide this office’s letter as under reference and y ou were requested to draw departmental proceeding against Sri Barthakur, within 90 days from the date of issue of the letter. In response of this office lette r under reference you had submitted the departmental proceeding vide your letter No.DKC/Estt/GB/08/1, dated 27.9.2008. After carefully examine the report, it re vealed that, Sri D.Borthakru(Under suspension) was neither given the reasonable opportunity for self defence nor he was personally heard for which the departme ntal proceeding was not approved. Further , you were directed to complete the process of the enquiry withi n 30 days and requested to forward the same to the undersigned. But it appears t hat you have not completed the process within the stipulated time. However, you have submitted a praer for extending the time for completion of the process fo r another 2 months i.e. upto 15th May, 2009 vide your letter as under reference. In this regards, it may be pointed out that, the Hon’ble High Court pass ed an order dated 07.11.2008 in WP(C) No.4604/2008, Sri Dulumoni Borthakur-Vs-Th e State of Assam and others, with a direction that the proceeding against the petitioner shall stand concluded by the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Governing the matter and within a period of 4 m onths from the date of issue of that order. Subsequently, this Directorate has c ommunicated the above Hon’ble High Court order to you vide this office letter No . office letter No.G(B).AC.155/2000/105, dated 27.11.2008. But no action has yet been taken on the matter from your end till date. Under this circumstances, you are requested to complete the process with in 15th May, 2009 without any further delay and if not completed, the suspension order of Sri Dulumoni Borthakur may be revoked without prejudice to the depart mental proceedings in the light of direction contained in the Govt. in personne l(B) Departments’ letter No. ABP.40/82/Pt., dated 11.02.1982(Copy enclosed). Please treat this as urgent. Yours faithfully Sd/- Director of Higher Education,Assam Kahilipara,the 6.5.2009 Memo No.G(B)AC.155/2008/167-A Copy to :- 1. t,Dispur,Guwahati-6 for information. The Principal Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education(Higher)Departmen Sri MK Choudhury,Senior Standing Counsel for Education Department, Gauha

2. ti High Court,Guwahati-1 for information. Sd/- Director of Higher Education, Assam Kahilipara,Guwahati-19 (cid:29) Pleaded case of the petitioner in the present case is that inspite of th e clear direction given by the aforesaid letter, till date departmental proceedi ng has not been completed by the authority and the petitioner is still under su spension in defiance of the order passed by this court as well as the higher aut hority. Aggrieved thereby the instant writ petition has been filed with the afor esaid prayer. Mr.Goswami learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing fo r respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent no.2 wherein at para-11 , it has been specifically stated that the respondent No.2 vide communication dated 6.5.2009 had requested the college authority to complete the process within 15.5.2009 without further delay and if not completed, to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner wit hout prejudice to the departmental proceeding . As no action has been taken by the college authority on the said letter a reminder was issued on 30.6.2009 for taking immediate action . The relevant para -12 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted hereinbelow: That the deponent states that however, the College authority did not tak (cid:28)12. e any action with reference to the said letter dated 6.5.2009 issued by the Dire ctorate of Higher Education, Assam. As such, a remainder was issued vide letter No.G (B)AC.155 /2008/174 dated 30.06.2009 for taking immediate action. Moreover , after receiving a representation from the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam ,Education (Higher)Education, Assam vide letter No.AHE.2 53 /2008/97 dated 1.7.2009 directed the Director of Higher Education, Assam fo r taking necessary steps to implement the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No. 4604/2008. Accordingly, the Directorate of Higher Edu cation, Assam issued letter No.G(B)AC.155 /2008/178 dated 6.7.2009 wrote to the Principal, Dhakuakhana College for revocation of the suspension in respect of the petitioner. However, the college authority has not taken any action as per Assam Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 till date. (cid:29) On a query made by this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner ha s submitted that fresh enquiry initiated by the authority has not been completed till date. It has been stated by Mr.Kataky that there is no further progress in the fresh enquiry except recording of the statement of the petitioner. Surprisingly enough, despite service of notice, there is no representati on on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Suspension from service is a very serious matter and should be for as mi nimum period as may only be necessary. A prolonged suspension without any justif iable cause is not only wastage of human resources but also of material resource s of the organisation, which has to pay the subsistence allowance etc without an y return. More so, on the materials available on record and the specific stateme nts made by the respondent No.2 in affidavit-in-opposition this court finds abso lutely no reasons to continue the suspension of the petitioner any further. In view of the above, the respondent authority is directed to revoke the impugned suspension order of the petitioner with immediate effect. The responde nt Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service forthwit h. With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of. Howeve r considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Before parting with the record, this Court would like to put on record t hat since this petition is disposed of in absence of respondent Nos.4 and 5, who inspite of service of notice did not appear before this Court in order to make a prayer that they would be permitted to continue with the departmental proceedi ng even after revocation of suspension order. In absence of such a prayer, this Court is not inclined to pass any order to that effect and the matter is left op en for the discretion of respondent No.2