WP(C) 6486/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure - XVII order dated 4.11.2010 by which she has been placed under suspension on the grounds indicated in the o rder. For a ready reference the order is quoted below - page 55 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur the 4th of November, 2010 NO. SWD. 210/2010/11. Whereas it appears from the report of the Deputy Commissio ner, Darrang dated 01-10.2010 that Smti Smriti Rekha Dutta Borah, CDPO, Pachim M angaldoi ICDS Project, Darrang was found absent on her duty for 36 days during t he month of October, 2009, June, 2010, July 2010 & September, 2010. It is furthe r reported that during an inspection of her office by the Honble Minister , Soci la Welfare, Assam accompanied by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang himself on 01- 10-2010, Smti Rekha Dutta Borah, CDPO was found absent and her staff who were pr esent could not give legitimate answer regarding her absence. Whereas it is also reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang that Smti. Dutta Borah, CDPO leave s District Head Quarter frequently without prior information either to his offic e or to the District Social Welfare Officer, Darrang which badly affects service to the public and as such she is considered a habitual offender by not attendin g office ignoring standing government order regarding staying at District Head Q uarter. This act of remaining absent from official duty as well as from Head Quarter wit hout information tantamount to violation of disregard/insubordination/negligence in duty to Rule 6(I) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 as amended. Now, therefore the Governor of Assam is pleased to order that Smti Smriti Rekha Dutta Borah, CDPO, Pachim Mangaldoi ICDS Project be pleased to place under suspe nsion with immediate effect in view of the charges above. Hence, Smti Smriti Rekha Dutta Borah, CDPO, Pachim Mangaldoi ICDS Project is her eby placed under suspension with immediate effect and until further order under provision of Rule 6(I) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 as amended pending drawal of departmental proceeding against her. During the period of her suspension, she will not leave headquarter without prio r permission of the concerned authority, she will be entitled to get subsistence allowance as per rules. The petitioner has alleged malafide and colourful exercise of power towards plac ing her under suspension. In this connection she has referred to the instances o f issuing directions to her by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 i.e. the Minister Soc ial Welfare and the private secretary to the Minister for appointment of the per sons of their choice. . For a ready reference the Annexure - II letter dated 17 .10.2010 is quoted below - CDPO, Pachim Mongoldoi, ICDS Project. Sir,/Madam, As directed by Hon’ble Minister, I would like to request you for the sel ection of below - mentioned candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker under you r ICDS Project. 1. Mrs. Bina Kalita. W/o Shri Hemanta Kr. Baruah. Roll No. 7. Centre No. 6(Adhamapara, Bishnu Mandir) Post : Worker. ICDS Project: Pachim Mongoldoi, ICDS. The above is one of the many such letters annexed to the writ petition. Annexure IV is the copy of the representation dated 20.10.2009 addressed to the Social W elfare Minister for appointment as Anganwadi Helper by one Smti. Mamoni Deka. On the body of the said representation the minister endorsed a note to the CDPO i. e. the petitioner by which direction was issued to consider the case of the appl icant. According to the petitioner since she did not comply with the aforesaid directio ns and adhered to the selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers as per the laid down norms, the said minister got annoyed with her as a consequence of which is sued direction for placing her under suspension and the resultant effect is the impugned order dated 4.11.2010. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents it has been stated t hat the petitioner has been placed under suspension for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. As regards the aforesaid allegations of non implementation of the directions of the minister and his P.A. for appointment of persons of th eir choice, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in their additional affidavit have denie d the same. What has been stated is that such directions are issued in a routine manner being the people’s representative. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. I have also gone throug h the records pertaining to the impugned order. On perusal of such records what is seen is that the petitioner has been placed u nder suspension as desired by the minister, Social Welfare vide his note dated 4 .11.2011. The said note was preceded by the W.T. Message dated 1.10.2010 levelli ng the same allegations against the petitioner as in the impugned order. Thereaf ter by an endorsement dated 5.10.2010 to the Commissioner and Secretary Social W elfare Department by the said minister direction was issued to place the petiti oner under suspension on the same very ground as reflected in the impugned order . In the meantime, the petitioner having come to know about the allegations made against her made a detailed representation dated 14.10.2010 to the District Soc ial Welfare Officer dealing with the allegations made against her. Alongwith the said representation she had annexed Annexure 1 and 2 statement showing the deta ils date-wise about her field works so as to contend that she was never absent from her duty unauthorisedly rather was engaged in field works. On receipt of th e said representation a note was put up on 13.10.2010 in the file pursuant to wh ich another note dated 25.10.2010 was endorsed by the Commissioner and Secretary calling for a preliminary inquiry report relating to the entire matter. It was also directed that the inquiry be conducted by the ADC level officer. When the aforesaid note was put up before the minister he made the above quoted endorsement holding that there is no need for holding further inquiry. Thus the whole basis of placing the petitioner under suspension is the allegations made against her without taking into account the aforesaid representation dated 14.10 .2010 in which the petitioner made elaborate explanations in the form of meeting the allegations made against her. In this context the Commissioner and Secretar y, Social Welfare Department made the aforesaid endorsement for conducting preli minary inquiry. The minister by the aforesaid endorsement directed the Commissio ner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department to place the petitioner under suspension with the opinion that there is no need to go for fur ther inquiry. After the aforesaid endorsement of the minister, the Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, passed the impugned order dated 4.11.2 010. In the process no cross verification was made about the allegations made ag ainst the petitioner and explanation furnished by the petitioner. He only acted as per the desire of the minister. In view of the above, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Soci al Welfare Department is directed to deal with the matter appropriately to find out as to whether the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 is justified or not and als o as to whether the continued suspension of the petitioner is required in the fa cts and circumstances of the case. At this stage, Ms. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel Social Welfare Departme nt submits that a preliminary inquiry has been ordered on 15.11.2010 relating to the allegations made against the petitioner. If that be so same is as per the a foresaid endorsement of the Commissioner and Secretary. However, before such pre liminary inquiry was conducted the petitioner was placed under suspension as the same was the desire of the minister. The petitioner has alleged malafide and co lourful exercise of power on the part of the respondent No. 6 and 7 towards plac ing her under suspension. The commissioner and secretary while considering the case of the petitio ner for revocation of the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 shall take into account all the relevant aspects of the matter and may dispose of the representation fi led by the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Let th e entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate n ot later than 15th of April 2011. Needless to say that while considering the case of the petitioner the Co mmissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department shall not be guided by any d esire of the political bosses but shall exercise his sound discretion in the mat ter.