WP(C) 4850/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. U Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Soren, learned Govt. Advocate representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Ms. R Deka, learned standing counsel for the PWD who appears for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner, a Subordinate Engineer of the PWD and on deputation to t he Panchayat and Rural Development Department and posted in the Boginodi Anchali k Panchayat has challenged two separate suspension orders. 3. The first order of suspension is dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure XXIV), which was passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), who is the Appointing Authority o f the petitioner in the parent Department. The second suspension order was passed on 7.11.2009 (Annexure XXII) by the Princ ipal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department (the borrowing Department). 4. In the writ petition it was firstly contended that the petitioner cannot be subjected to two suspension orders by two different Authorities. While the m atter was pending in this Court, by an order dated 9.2.2010, the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) vacated the suspension order passed by him on 3.11.2009. Therefore the challenge on the first point gets resolved. 5. Next the petitioner contends that the other suspension order dated 7.11. 2009 issued by the Principal Secretary of the Panchayat and Rural Development De partment cannot also be sustained in as much as the said order having been expre ssed in the name of the Governor takes away from the petitioner, his right to fi le an Appeal under Rule 14 of the Assam Services Discipline And Appeal Rules, 19 64, to the higher authority. 6. Petitioner also contends that even in the borrowing Department, only a c ompetent Authority, meaning thereby the Authority equivalent to the Appointing A uthority of the delinquent in the borrowing Department, can suspend him. It is n ot in dispute that the Competent Authority in the borrowing Department in the in stant case would be the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development Directorate and it is not the Principal Secretary of the Department. 7. Having regard to the fact that the suspension against the petitioner has been ordered in the name of the Governor and that too by an Authority which is not equivalent to the Appointing Authority in the borrowing Department, I am of the considered view that the said order dated 7.11.2009 cannot be allowed to sta nd. 8. However, considering the fact that the suspension has been ordered on th e basis of a report of the Dy. Commissioner, which refers to allegations of insu bordination, insincerity and misappropriation of Govt. funds and a departmental proceeding is contemplated on such charges, it may not be right to disable the c ompetent Authority to pass a fresh suspension order to ensure a free and fair in quiry in the contemplated Departmental Proceeding. But it is left to the respond ent’s discretion to deal with the matter. 9. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure XXIV) is qua shed with liberty to the Competent Authority to pass fresh suspension order, if so advised. 10. The case is disposed of accordingly.