WP(C) 5152/2008 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms G. Changkakati, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. B. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure-’A’ to th e writ petition) by which he has been placed under suspension as per the provisi ons of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 pending drawal of t he departmental proceeding. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer and presently, posted at Dhemaji Water Resource Division, to which post, he joined on transfer on 10.10.2007. A ccording to the petitioner, he being the new incumbent at Dhemaji, he is not a t all responsible for any commission or omission in respect of the preparation of estimate and execution of work etc. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations made in the notification dated 29.8.2008 towards placing him under suspension are all ill-founded and that there is nothing adverse against him. Mrs. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department was r equested to produce the records, which she produced on 22.12.2008. She has once again produced the records and has referred to the counter affidavit filed in terms of the order dated 22.12.2008. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the records do not reveal anything against the petitioner. He has also referred to the st atements made in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit. While in Para-7, it has been stated that the petitioner prepared the estimate of Rs.487.40 lakhs for the particular scheme and executed works on wrong alignment near the bank which was not feasible as per enquiry report, but in Para-8, a contradictory sta tement has been made stating that the works were executed as per the estimate p repared for the work in question by the departmental authority. I have gone through the entire file bearing No.WR (E)54/2008. Prima faci e, it appears that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was respo nsible in any manner in the incident which is contrary to the grounds assigned in the impugned order of suspension as well as in the counter affidavit. It i s for this reason, the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit in re ference to the said file. The counter affidavit has been verified in Para-14 stating all the statements to be true to the knowledge of the deponent, except Para-6. Para-6 of the counter affidavit speaks of approval etc. towards placin g the petitioner under suspension. It prima facie appears that since the petitio ner, after joining on 10.10.2007, had been working as Executive Engineer in the particular division, he was also taken up for departmental proceeding and towar ds that, he was placed under suspension by the impugned order. In Para-7 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated about t he issuance of the show cause notice to the writ petitioner and his reply theret o. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner towards reinstateme nt in service upon revocation of the order of suspension is under active consi deration. Needless to say that the suspension of an officer from service should no t be taken recourse to as a routine affair. It does not help either party. If the involvement of the petitioner in the incident is not discernible or not ac ute so as to place under suspension, he ought not to have been placed under sus pension as a routine matter. The petitioner is under suspension for the last ab out more than four months. As per the Executive Instructions holding the field, an order of suspension is required to be reviewed every 3 months. As noted ab ove, the respondents themselves have made it known that the case of the petiti oner is under active consideration for reinstatement in service upon revocation of the order of suspension. Upon consideration of the matter in its entirety including the relevant file produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has been able to make out a strong case. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has highlighted his grievance and has urged all the grounds in the show cause reply to indicate that the order of suspension was wholly unwarranted. Considering all the above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to pass appropriate order consistently with the observations made ab ove in respect of the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the impugned or der of suspension dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure-’A’ to the writ petition). Necessar y order in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible but at any r ate not later than 23rd January, 2009. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order and rev ocation of the order of suspension shall have no effect in the departmental pr oceeding which will be conducted on its own merit.