WP(C) 1470/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr A Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms B Bhuiyan, the l earned Standing Counsel, PWD. The petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality of the notifica tion dated 24.12.2010 placing him under suspension pending drawal of departmenta l enquiry against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order has been made on the ground that the petitioner, who supervised the works of PMGSY Package No. AS-03-85 prepared the bills to the tune of Rs. 1 27.27 lakhs for unspecified and substandard works, which resulted in wastage of public money, but this completely overlooked the fact that the payment for thes e bills amounting to Rs. 127.27 lakhs were made for three works order and not fo r a single work order. According to the learned counsel, the suspension order i s vague and suffers from non application of mind and was passed hurriedly by the disciplinary authority without even knowing the duties performed by the petitio ner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that higher officials, who have more responsibility for the execution of the works, have not been proc eeded against in a departmental proceeding and the petitioner is subjected to a hostile discrimination. Though there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned suspension order suffers from disc repancies, the fact remains that a departmental enquiry is being held against th e petitioner in connection with the work order for construction of NH 53 to Srid harpur road under PMGSY Package No. AS-03-85, for poor quality of work so execut ed. The poor quality of the work came to the notice of the Additional Chief Sec retary to the Govt. of Assam, (Works) during his inspection at the works site on 14.12.2010. The Senior Official was accompanied by State Quality Co-ordinator, Assam, Superintending Engineer, PWD, Cachar Road Circle, Silchar and other offi cials of Programme Implementing Unit of PMGSY Road work during the inspection. It was reported by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Cachar Road Circle, Silchar , that there was gross negligence of duty by the petitioner despite several warn ing. The Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Assam, Guwahati, therefore, strongly recom mended the suspension of the petitioner upon which the impugned suspension order was issued. Ms B Bhuiyan, the learned Standing Counsel for PWD drawing my atte ntion to paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition submits that the suspension order was issued as per preliminary investigation submitted by the Chief Enginee r, PWD (Roads), Assam vide his letter dated 14.12.2010 and that the Deputy Secre tary to the Govt. of Assam, PWD Roads Department Confidential Cell vide his lett er dated 8.4.2011 has already requested the Superintending engineer, PWD Cachar Road Circle, Silchar to furnish the draft charges, statement of allegations, lis t of documents, list of witness against the petitioner for initiating necessary departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel h as given an assurance that the petitioner will be given reasonable opportunity t o defend his case in the departmental proceedings. On the facts and circumstanc es available on record, I do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court with the impugned suspension order. Nevertheless, I must observe that though the petitioner was already placed under suspension for the last more than six months, he is not being charge-sheeted till now. It is also pointed o ut by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been pa id his subsistence allowance till now. As the petitioner is charged with gross misconduct including misappropriation of public money, the State respondents wer e right to place him under suspension. Though I decline to interfere with the i mpugned suspension order, some directions are called for so that the petitioner is given some protections. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of wit h the following directions : 1. The impugned suspension order does not call for the interference of this Court; 2. The State respondents shall complete the departmental enquiry preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order; 3. If the petitioner has not been paid his substantial allowance, the State respondents shall pay him the same together with the arrears due till now withi n one month from the date of receipt of this order; 4. It shall be open to the petitioner to move the disciplinary authority fo r reinstatement to his post after expiry of six months and as and when such appl ication is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the State respondents in accordance with law without any delay. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Standing Counsel PWD in the cou rse of the day.