WP(C) 3132/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr.S.Dutta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hear d Mr. M.K.Misra learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension or der dated 2.01.2006 by which he was put under suspension with effect from 25.1 0.2005 pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 3. Petitioner’s case in brief is that he was appointed as Subject Teacher(C hemistry) temporarily vide appointment order dated 23.7.1984 in the Rit-Karan Balsand Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose School (for short R.B.H.S. & M.P sc hool) Mirza,Kamrup. Subsequently his service was regularised(Annexure-I) and vid e office order dated 13.2.2004 (annexure-2) his service was confirmed as Subjec t Teacher, Chemistry. While serving as such, and performing duties to the satisf action of all concerned, the petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2005 for an offenc e alleged to have been committed under Sections 120(B)/121(A)/122/387 of the Ind ian Penal Code (IPC for short ), read with Section 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activit ies (Prevention) Act in connection with Palasbari P.S.Case No. 150/04 and he was detained in police custody. But the petitioner was granted bail vide order date d 30.11.2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup on the ground of inadequacy o f the materials collected by the Investigating Oficer to show the petitioner’s i nvolvement with any unlawful activities as alleged. As the petitioner was detain ed in custody he was suspended from service vide impugned order dated 2.1.2006 w ith effect from 25.10.2005 pending drawl of departmental proceeding, further mak ing it clear therein that the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allow ance during the period of his suspension. However, due to non-payment of subsis tence allowance, causing acute financial hardship to the petitioner, he had to approach this Court for a direction to the authority to pay the subsistence al lowance. In the writ petition so filed being WP(C) No. 5627/2006, this Court w hile disposing the writ petition vide order dated 15.11.2006, directed the resp ondent authority to pay the subsistence allowance forthwith, both arrear and current , making it clear that non-payment of subsistence allowance would be v iewed seriously. Pursuant to the order so passed, the petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance by the authority. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the date of suspe nsion, no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, nor charge sheet submitted in connection with Polasbari P.S. Case No. 150/04. More so as per Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 the authority is to review the suspension order from time to time, which has also not been done in case of the petitioner. It is further contended that, the petitioner is no way involved in the said criminal offence and though he is drawing the subsistence allowance for last more than five years, the petitioner alongwith his family mem ber, have been facing severe financial crisis. 5. In the above background questioning the legality and validity of the ord er of suspension, Mr.Dutta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has s ubmitted that on the ground of prolonged suspension from service when no depart mental proceeding is contemplated/ initiated and or no criminal proceeding has b een pending against the petitioner, the suspension order deserves to be interfer ed with. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance to the foll owing decisions in support of his submission:- 1. (1999) 6 SCC 257 K.Sukhendar Reddy Vs. State of A. P and another. 2. 2002 (3) GLT 498 Jinna Abdur Rahim Vs.State of Assam & ors. 3. 2005 (3) GLT 345 Matiur Rahman Vs.State of Assan & another 4. 2006(Suppl.) GLT 814 Apurba Kr.Borthakur Vs.State of Assam & others. In regard to prolonged suspension, the decision cited in K.Sukhendra R eddy (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case. In K.Sukhendra Reddy (supra) in view of his prima facie involvement in a criminal case registered w ith the police station, the appellant was placed under suspension. However, in vestigation not completed during two- and -a half long years and there was no information as to how long it would continue thereafter. In such circumstance , the Apex Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the suspension order, holdi ng that the appellant could not be kept under suspension indefinitely. The petitioner, in the instant case, was put under suspension on 2.1.2006 w.e.f. 25.10.2005 on the alleged involvement with the criminal case. However neither any charge sheet nor final report has been submitted by the police and this Cou rt does not know how long it will take to complete the same. More so when the de partmental proceeding has not yet been contemplated, the petitioner cannot be ke pt under suspension for indefinite period. In Jinna Abdur Rahim (supra) this court while setting aside the order of suspension with direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential be nefit has held that the order of suspension pending for long on the ground of p endency of criminal case where no departmental proceeding initiated, cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. In Matiur Rahman (supra) this Court held that the suspension, pending fo r long, on the ground of pending completion of the departmental proceeding as we ll as criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. In Apurba Kr.Borthakur this court has held that prolonged suspension wit hout initiation of any departmental proceeding on the basis of petitioner’s arre st in the criminal case cannot be allowed to continue. 6. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed , nor record produced on beha lf of the respondents despite granting time by this Court on the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The writ petition therefore taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself considering the grievance raised and as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Having perused the materials on record and also upon hearing the lear ned counsel appearing for the parties, it would appear that since the date of suspension the departmental proceeding whatsoever has not been initiated till d ate. Not to speak of criminal proceeding, even no charge sheet has been submitte d and the petitioner has been allowed to remain in suspension for an indefinite period in absence of initiation of any departmental proceeding or criminal proce eding. Prolonged suspension without initiation of any departmental proceeding a nd criminal proceeding, whatsoever, results in great hardships to the employee, inasmuch as, one should always keep in mind that the suspension does not mean th e culmination of the service of the employee. Despite his suspension he continue s to be an employee under the said authority . The suspension is a measure tak en against the employee to facilitate the initiation and completion of the depar tmental enquiry in protecting the interest of the Government or the organisation . On the other hand the indefinite suspension without any plausible and sufficie nt cause shall not only the wastage of human resources but also shall adversely affect the materials resources of Government, which is under obligation to pay t he subsistence allowance to the employee. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md.Sahabuddin-vs-State of Assam and others(1990) 1 GLR 276 held that prolonged suspension for more than t hree years of the employee from his service without any further action having been taken in the matter was neither proper nor justified. In the case in han d the petitioner has been put under suspension for more than five years and as such the ratio of the said case is squarely applicable in the instant case. In Md.Sahabuddin (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as follows:- 5. Without entering into that controversy at this stage, we do think that prolonged suspension for more than three years of the petitioner from ser vice without any further action having been taken in the matter, was neither pr oper nor justified. 6. 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 any return. We find absolutely no reason to continue the suspension of the peti tioner. 9. Considering the averments made in the writ petition and arguments advanc ed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, also having regard to the d ecisions referred to hereinabove, this Court seems it fit to set aside the suspe nsion order dated 2.1.2006 suspending the petitioner from service w.e.f. 25.10.2 005 directing the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of suspension dat ed 2.1. 2006 is set aside and quashed. The respondent authority is directed to r einstate the petitioner forthwith. The respondent authority is further directe d to Release the arrear pay and allowances to the petitioner as per his entitlem ent in accordance with relevant rules. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no o rder as to costs.