WP(C) 3001/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. D.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R. Chakra borty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. I have also heard Mrs. M. Bordol oi, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-7 and 9 orders dated 27.5.2011 and 3 0.5.2011. By the first order dated 27.5.2011 issued by the Secretary, B.T.C., th e petitioner was called upon to appear in a public hearing in respect of the all egation mentioned in the order. In terms of the said order, the petitioner was t o appear in the said public hearing on 4.6.2011. By the second order dated 30.5.2011, the petitioner has been placed under suspen sion with the rider that his headquarters will be at Guwahati during the period of suspension. The petitioner while was working as Addl. Chief Engineer-cum-Director, P.H.E.D. BTC, Kokrajhar was released from office by the B.T.C. unilaterally. The ground o f release is the alleged abuse of the fixed pay Grade-IV employee named in the o rder of release dated 20.5.2011. The impugned Annexure-7 order dated 27.5.2011 d irecting the petitioner to appear in a public hearing was after the said release order. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension by the second impugned order dated 30.5.2011. The petitioner has mentioned in the writ petition that he has not done anything so as to warrant such drastic actions against him including issuance of the or der of suspension. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that h is services being at the disposal of the B.T.C., if the authorities of the B.T.C . are of the opinion that his services are required to be dispensed with, they may do so, but the same may not be by casting any stigma on him. By order dated 13.6.2011, both Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advoca te, Assam and Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. were requested to obtain instructions in the matter and also produce the file, in which the imp ugned order of suspension was initiated and passed. In terms of the said order, learned State counsel has produced the relevant file , in which the order of suspension has been initiated and passed. On perusal of the entire file including the documents therein, prima facie, it does not appear to be a case in which the petitioner is required to be placed under suspension. Although the particular note speaks of purported admission on the part of the p etitioner, but on perusal of the his statement available in the file, there is a bsolutely no material to suggest that the petitioner had admitted the allegation against him, There are other statements of the employees which also do not sugg est the kind of involvement of the petitioner as is sought to be projected by th e respondents The whole incident prima facie, appears to be the product of a mis understanding. Coupled with the above, the petitioner has already been released from B.T.C. and he has also handed over charge. Normally, an officer/employee is placed under s uspension so that he cannot influence the enquiry proceeding that might be condu cted relating to the charge. An officer/employee may not be placed under suspens ion as a routine affair. While placing an officer/employee under suspension, an opinion will have to be formed on the basis of the materials available against him. In the instant case, the very note on the basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension is misdirected inasmuch as the materials including the statements of the concerned employee do not suggest for such an opinion. Prima f acie, the entire episode appears to be the product of a misunderstanding. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner vide Annexure-9 order dated 30.5.2011 i s required to be interfered with. Consequently, the same is set aside and quashe d. However, I hasten to add that the interference with the order of suspension w ill not stand on the way of the respondents to conduct the departmental proceedi ng, if they are so advised. In view of the above, the adverse remarks made against the petitioner in the ord er of release dated 20.5.2011 shall also stand expunged.