IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1021 of 2009 ANAND PRASAD DUTTA Son of Late Paresh Chandra Dutta @ Late Ram Murti Dutta, posted as Assistant/Clerk, 12 S.G.A. N.J.M.C. Ltd Unit R.B.H.M., Katihar, resident of Mohalla- Durga Asthan ( Rajendra Gram ), P.O. and P.S. and District Katihar. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,New Delhi 3. The Chairman cum- Managing Director, National JuteManufactures Corporation Ltd. ( A Government of India Undertaking), Chartered Bank Building, 2nd Floor, N..S.Road, Kolkata. 4. Asst. General Manager ( Personnel/Administration), N.J.M.C. Ltd. Corporate Office, Chartered Bank Building, 2nd Floor, 4 N.S. Road Kolkata. 5. Sri O.P.Pandey, Father’s name not known Acting Unit Head, N.J.M.C. Ltd. Govt. of India Undertaking, Unit R.B.H.M., KatiharP.O. Katihar Mills,Distt. Katihar 6. Sri D.N.Singh, Father’s name not known, Manager, Works/Incharge Personnel, N.J.M.C. Ltd. Unit R.B.H.M., Katihar, P.O. Katihar Mills, District Katihar 7. Sri Amrendra Kumar, father’s name not known, Deputy Manager- cum-Incharge3, Legal/ Administration,N.J.M.C. Ltd. Unit R.B.H.M., Katihar, P.O. Katihar Mills, District- Katihar... Respondents. ----------- 3 16-3-2009 Heard the parties. By the impugned order dated 16-9-2008 petitioner was informed that he has been placed under suspension in anticipation of a disciplinary proceeding under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules. Petitioner has challenged the suspension mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that as a clerk petitioner was appointed by Executive Director of the Corporation and hence the Incharge (Personnel ) had no authority to place the petitioner under suspension. The second ground is that respondent no.5, the acting Unit Head, respondent no.6, the Incharge Personnel and respondent no.7, the Deputy Manager-cum-Incharge Legal/ Administration, N.J.M.C. - 2 - Ltd. of the respondents Corporation at Katihar had conspired and acted mala fide to place the petitioner under proceeding and suspension . On a careful perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7 and particularly on a perusal of Annexure-C which also contains towards the end the relevant decision for initiation of departmental proceeding and suspension, it is found that the post of Executive Director has been abolished and now its equivalent is Unit Head who appears to have taken the decision to suspend the petitioner. That decision is dated 2-9-08 at the end of annexure-2 and then it has been carried out and communicated by the Incharge ( Personnel) through the impugned order dated 16-9-2008 contained in annexure- 23. In view of relevant Rules and in view of the fact that appointing authority has taken the decision to suspend the petitioner which has led to his suspension, this court finds no substance in the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner. So far as the next point is concerned, it would not be proper for this court to consider the facts of the case in detail at the present stage when charge sheet appears to have been issued and petitioner is required to take his defence in the disciplinary proceeding itself. Hence, in respect of the second ground liberty is granted to the petitioner to take all possible defence in the proceeding itself. There is some controversy whether petitioner avoided the serving of charge-sheet upon him at the Head-quarter where he was required to be present during suspension. According to the - 3 - Naresh respondents a Newspaper publication regarding the charge-sheet had to be made and allegedly petitioner is not cooperating. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that he is ready to cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding . However, he submits that he has not been paid any subsistence allowances so far although he raised such a grievance as far back as on 26-12-2008 vide Annexure-26, In view of aforesaid discussions the writ petition is dismissed but with a direction to the respondents-authorities of the Corporation to expedite the disciplinary proceeding and take a final decision in accordance with law at an early date, preferably within three months of petitioner’s filing his show-cause or defence before the enquiry officer. It is made clear that petitioner is expected to cooperate in the proceeding and be available at the Head quarter. He should be paid subsistence allowance as per law regularly, starting within two weeks from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The dues of subsistence allowance should also be paid to him within a period of four weeks. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)