WP(C) 3104/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view of the subject matter involved final orders in the writ petition are bei ng passed with the consent of the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, Sri B. J. Taluk dar. The petitioner who is a Lot Mondal has assailed an order dated 28.3.2008 placing him under suspension as well as a charge memo dated 28.4.2008 by which a depart mental proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated. The suspension of the petitioner made by order dated 28.3.2008 was passed pendin g drawal of a departmental proceeding. As a departmental proceeding has been ini tiated by issuing charge memo dated 28.4.2008 (Annexure-IX to the writ petition) the Court will understand the allegations levelled against the petitioner to ha ve occasioned the suspension order. A reading of the charge sheet dated 28.4.200 8 indicates that the charge levelled against the petitioner is one pertaining to submission of a report with regard to possession of land of three applicants by construction of houses which according to the disciplinary authority is incorre ct. Though a number of grounds and contentions have been advanced by Sri A. K. Goswa mi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the conte ntion that the charge levelled against the petitioner is, ex facie, not tenable and, therefore, open to interference by the writ Court, on due consideration, th e Court is of the view that having regard to the nature of the charge levelled t he petitioner should take up the aforesaid stand in the departmental proceeding initiated against him. As a matter of fact, it would be more appropriate for the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, who would be better posted with the relevant facts to deal with the contention raised, in the first instance. T he Court, therefore, is not inclined to admit the writ petition to regular heari ng as in the course of such regular hearing the Court would be required to consi der a subject matter which has already been indicated to be more appropriate to be decided by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Sri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the departme ntal proceeding against the petitioner having been drawn up further continuance of his suspension will not be justified. The question as to whether the departme ntal proceeding against the petitioner can be proceeded with without any let or hindrance, even if the petitioner continues to discharge his duties, is a questi on that has to be primarily decided by the disciplinary authority and not by the writ court. This is precisely why several Office Memoranda have been issued, fr om time to time, requiring periodical review of the necessity of keeping an incu mbent under suspension. In the present case the petitioner has remained under su spension for nearly four months now. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that instead of interfering with the suspension of the petitioner it would be more appropriate for the Court to require the disciplinary authority of the p etitioner to undertake a review of the necessity of keeping the petitioner under suspension. Consequently, the Court deems it appropriate to close the writ petition by requi ring the departmental proceeding against the petitioner to be concluded at an ea rly date which, in any case, shall not extend beyond a period of three months fr om the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In framing the aforesaid time sc hedule the Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has already subm itted his written statement in the departmental proceeding. Insofar as the revie w of the suspension of the petitioner is concerned, orders as may be appropriate would be passed by the authority concerned within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subsistence allowance at such rate/rates, as may be due to the petitioner, if ha s remained unpaid, shall be released to him forthwith and without any delay. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.