WP(C) 2525/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Ms SP Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Saikia , learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department, Assam. In view of the subject matter involved and as full instructions have been receiv ed by Sri Saikia, Standing Counsel, PWD, which have been placed before the Court , final orders in the writ petition are being passed at the motion stage. The petitioner, who is a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, Assam, seeks to challenge an order dated 03.02.2007 by which he has been placed under s uspension. The petitioner also seeks a direction from the Court for payment of s ubsistence allowance @ 75% of his basic pay with effect from the date from which subsistence allowance at the said rate is required to be paid. The petitioner being under suspension for nearly 16(sixteen) months now on the v ery day the writ petition was moved, the Court desired to know the reasons for t he suspension of the petitioner and whether a departmental proceeding against hi m has been initiated in the meantime. Sri S.Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam, who has been instructed in t he matter has informed the Court that the petitioner has been placed under suspe nsion on an allegation of unauthorized absence from duty for the period 09.03.20 04 to 09.03.2006. Sri Saikia has further informed the Court that till today no d epartmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner though the proc ess for such initiation is presently at an advanced state. The allegation against the petitioner of being unauthorizedly absent from duties is denied and disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, for the purpose of the present writ petition, the Court does not consider it either necessary or appropriate to go into the said question. Such a question being ess entially a question of fact has to be resolved, in the first instance, on the ba sis of an enquiry, be it a preliminary enquiry or a departmental proceeding. However, in so far as the suspension of the petitioner is concerned, the Court f inds no justification whatsoever for further continuance of the suspension of th e petitioner in view of the nature of the allegations leveled against him. Such an allegation can very well be enquired into even if the petitioner is to be rei nstated in service by revocation of his suspension. That apart, continuance of t he suspension order on the allegation levelled for long 16(sixteen) months witho ut even initiation of a proceeding, can only be construed to be an abuse of the powers vested in the Respondents. For all the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to set aside the suspension of the petitioner; direct the Respondents to allow him to resume duties forthwi th and pay subsistence allowance @ 75% from such date that the said rate of subs istence allowance is due to the petitioner. All the aforesaid actions will be co mplied with by the Respondents forthwith. However, it is made clear that notwith standing the interference made, it will be open for the Respondents to initiate and conclude a departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorized absence if the Respondents are so advised. In such an event the question as to how the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be dealt wit h will be determined by the Respondents at the conclusion of the proceeding agai nst the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions contained in FR 54(B) o f the Fundamental Rules. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.