WP(C) 1337/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, learne d Govt. Advocate, Assam. The petitioner, who is a Grade-IV employee (Chowkidar) in the establishment of t he Labour Inspector, Kaliabor, was placed under suspension by an order dated 17. 8.2000. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 15.9. 2001. The charges levelled against the petitioner, in the main, are to the effec t that the petitioner had illegally occupied Govt. land and had constructed a th atched house therein and further that he had misbehaved with the Assistant Labou r Commissioner, Nagaon on specific dates mentioned in the charge memo dated 15th of September 2001. As the suspension of the petitioner had persisted and the de partmental proceeding against him has not been finalized the present approach ha s been made. Considering the subject matter involved, notice was issued on the writ applicati on on 4.4.2008 and the respondents were directed to file their affidavit, if any , to enable the Court to dispose of the matter on the next date fixed i.e. 5.5.2 008. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In fact, Sri Soren, le arned Govt. Advocate, Assam has prayed for further time for filing of affidavit. The petitioner is a lowly paid employee of the State Government. He has been und er suspension for nearly 8 years now. The departmental proceeding initiated agai nst him way back on 15.9.2001 has also not been concluded. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding has already been noted. T he Court has also taken into account the stand taken by the petitioner that in t he meantime the petitioner has been informed by the revenue authority that a pro cess has been initiated for issuing a patta in favour of the petitioner in respe ct of the land in question. In the aforesaid facts the Court is constrained to take the view that further co ntinuation of the suspension of the petitioner would be a travesty of justice. T he Court is also inclined to take the view that the departmental proceeding agai nst him can be continued even without continuance of the suspension of the petit ioner. The Court, therefore, is of the view that the writ petition should be disposed o f by setting aside the suspension of the petitioner made by order dated 17.8.200 8 and by directing completion of the departmental proceeding against him within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that if the departmental p roceeding against the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of three months the petitioner must be understood to have been exonerated in the s aid proceeding. Writ petition, consequently, is allowed to the extent indicated above.