WP(C) 641/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr P Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr P Ta lukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department. The petitioner who is a Superintending Engineer of the Water Resources D epartment is due to superannuate at the end of the current month i.e. February, 2009. He has been placed under suspension by an order dated 29.8.2008. According to the petitioner, he had filed an appeal/ representation for revocation of the aforesaid suspension which has not been disposed of till date. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding has been drawn up against the petitioner by a Charge Memo dated 11.12.2008. The petitioner has filed his reply to the said Charge Mem o. Another grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that though the petitio ner has submitted his reply to the Charge Memo dated 11.12.2008, the departmenta l proceeding initiated against him has not made any progress and in view of the impending retirement of the petitioner and the possible prejudice that may be c aused to him with regard to his post retirement benefits, this writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate intervention of the Court, particularly, with re gard to the suspension order dated 29.8.2008. Mr Talukdar, learned departmental counsel has placed before the Court a file bearing No. WR(E)54/08 to contend that the suspension of the petitioner is not without any basis and/or material. The Court has looked into the contents of the said file particularly, the report of the Two Member Committee which is ava ilable in the file. Though the Court had disposed of similar writ petitions filed by other o fficials against similar suspension orders i.e. WP(C) No. 350/09 and other conne cted cases by an order dated 9.2.2009, the Court is of the view that the impendi ng retirement of the petitioner at the end of the current month would required t he Court to pass an order somewhat different from the aforesaid order dated 9.2. 2009 passed in WP(C) No. 350/09 and other connected cases. As the appeal/ representation of the petitioner against the suspension o rder has not been disposed of, the Court is of the view that the respondents sh ould be directed to pass appropriate orders on the prayer made by the petitioner for revocation of his suspension forthwith and in any case, prior to the retire ment of the petitioner. Furthermore, as the superannuation of the petitioner wil l become effective from 1.3.2008 and the pendency of the departmental proceeding against him may adversely affect his entitlement to the post retirement benefit s, the Court is of the view that the departmental proceeding against the petitio ner should be concluded at an early date which, in any case, should be within fo ur months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. Be yond the above, no further order is considered to be justified. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.