WP(C) 6584/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Choudhur y, learned counsel who represents the respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. Malakar appea rs for respondent No. 6 who is the former Principal of Bajali College and agains t whom various allegations of bias have been levelled by the petitioner. Ms. M. Gogoi Medhi, learned standing counsel appears for respondents No. 1,2 and 3. 2. The petitioner who is a lecturer in English of Bajali College i s before this Court seeking to challenge an order dated 23.10.07 (Annexure IV) w hereby the Director of Higher Education has given approval to the Resolution No . 3 dated 27.11.05 of Governing Body of the College, whereby the petitioner is s ought to be placed under suspension. 3. In course of submissions made by the learned counsels, charges h ave been exchanged about the conduct of the writ petitioner who is reportedly no t co-operating with the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charge mad e against her and the counter charges made by the writ petitioner that the Colle ge authorities have not provided her access to the relevant College records to e nable her to conduct her defence during the enquiry. 4. However, it is now agreed by the parties that all concerned will co-operate with the 3rd and the latest Enquiry Officer who has been appointed by the order dated 3.5.08 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Thi s might perhaps be because the new Enquiry Officer the SDO (Civil), Bajali is no t at all connected with any College affairs. The respondent No. 6, who was the P rincipal of the College at the time of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and against whom charge of bias has been levelled by the writ petitioner has also since retired from the College. 5. In view of the above development the petitioner is prepared now to fully co-operate in the Enquiry and to participate in the enquiry proceeding. It is also assured by Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the Colle ge that the petitioner would be permitted to inspect the documents, which would be relevant and necessary, for defending the charges made against her. 6. In view of long pendency of the matter and the inability of the earlier Enquiry Officers to conclude the enquiry proceeding, it is considered ap propriate to direct that the enquiry be conducted expeditiously and preferably b e concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s order. It is made clear that the outer time limit of four months i ndicated, is subject to both the parties extending full co-operation with the En quiry Officer. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the ab ove order. A copy of the DHE’s communication dated 3.5.08 appointing the Enquiry Officer is kept on record.