WP(C) 2131/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Intervention of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought for to invalidate the order dated 18.03.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (A), Assam placing t he petitioner under suspension pending drawal of a departmental proceeding again st him. The order, inter alia, mentions about gross misconduct committed by the petitioner warranting this step. I have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Wise Imran, Adv ocate a nd Mr. Rahman, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The averments in the pleadings need to be scripted in brief, to have a grip of t he essential facts. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving as Head Assistant in th e Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur, Tezpur. According to him, a few days before the impugned order of suspension was passed, an application sub mitted by one Munmie Saikia, Woman Constable 533 of the District of Sonitpur add ressed to the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur(Respondent No.5) in connection with house rent allowance was laid before him in the capacity of Head Assistant of the Office. He forwarded the same to the accounts branch and was wholly unaw are of the developments thereafter relating thereto. He was placed under suspens ion subsequently. On necessary inquiries, he came to learn that meanwhile, anot her letter had been addressed by the Respondent No.5 to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Building Division, Sonitpur asking for a certificate of non availability of quarters for sanctioning house rent allowance to the aforenamed lady constab le and that he had been associated with some irregularities pertaining thereto. The Respondent No.5, in his counter, while affirming that on 18.02.2010 Smt. Mun mie Saikia, Woman Police Constable had applied for house rent allowance asserted that the same was endorsed to the Head Assistant/petitioner for necessary actio n. The answering respondent has alleged that without his approval, the petition er, however directed the staff of the accounts branch of his office to incorpora te the house rent allowance in her pay bill. Further, on 19.02.2010 he also sen t a letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.,(B) Division, Tezpur, Son itpur in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur, Tezpur. It was all eged that the signature borne by the letter was neither that of the Superintende nt of Police, Sonitpur nor that of any Additional Superintendent of Police or De puty Superintendent of Police at the Headquarters. The petitioner was also accu sed of being an accomplice in the act of forgery. The affidavit was accompanied amongst others by a report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, (H.Q.), Sonitpur, Tezpur reiterating the above. The petitioner in his affidavit-in-repl y while controverting the allegations, denied in particular that he was instrume ntal in sending the letter on 19.02.2010 as well as the imputation of his involv ement in the alleged act of forgery. Mr. Choudhury in the above background of pleadings has assiduously argued that t here being nothing tangible to establish any nexus between the petitioner and th e allegations levelled, the order of suspension is unsustainable in law and on f acts and ought to be interfered with. This is, more so, as there is no trace of any departmental proceeding against him, as on date, though, in the meantime tw o months have expired. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that at the fag e nd of his service carrier he ought not to be subjected to his agony any further. Mr. Rahman, in reply, has contended that as the allegations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie supported by the findings of the preliminary inquiry as narrated in the report on 10.03.2010, no interference at this stage by this Court is called for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, this Court does not feel inclined to intervene at this stage . This is not for it being convinced about the correctness of the allegations a gainst the petitioner as levelled but in view of contentious facts which need to be probed into to arrive at a correct decision. In view of the disputed questi ons of facts that emerge in the pleadings of the parties, this Court does not fe el persuaded to undertake a roving inquiry. Mr. Rahman when queried by this Court, has submitted with reference to the recor ds that the departmental proceeding as referred to in the impugned order of susp ension has since been initiated on 31.03.2010. As the petitioner is under susp ension and admittedly is at the end of his service career, this Court considers it to be incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to complete the sam e as expeditiously as possible. This is more so, in the face of the mandate of the related administrative guidelines requiring them to speed up such a process vis-à-vis an incumbent under suspension. This Court, thus, while refusing to intervene with the impugned order of suspens ion passed against the petitioner, therefore directs the respondent authorities to complete the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by 30th June, 201 0. The petitioner, needless to say would cooperate with the process, so as to enabl e the respondents to complete the proceedings by the deadline fixed by this Cour t. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.