WP(C) 1522/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In assailment is the notification dated 27.02.2010 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Department placing the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him. 01. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Senior Advocate for the petitione r and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department for the offi cial respondents (hereinafter for short referred to as the Department). 02. Service of notice being complete and as urgency was expressed on behalf of the petitioner, the petition has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage. 03. Dr. Ahmed on being queried by this Court, has opted to rely on t he extracts of the relevant official records to address the issues on behalf of the official respondents. 04. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he had joi ned as Assistant Engineer in the Department in the year 1977 and was promoted as Executive Engineer in 2007 and has since March,2009 been posted in the said cap acity in the Guwahati West Division(Irrigation). He has averred that for payment of the contractors’ dues pertaining to various works under the different scheme s relating to the Guwahati West Division (Irrigation), an amount of Rs.14.5 cror es had been sanctioned and placed at the disposal of this Division for necessary releases to the concerned contractors within 26.02.2010. As a condition preced ent for such payments, the petitioner was required to personally verify the sati sfactory execution of the works entrusted. According to him, the Respondent No. 5 who is also a contractor under the Department was refused payment for not bein g able to complete the execution of such works, as well as for some doubt about the quality thereof. He has alleged proximity of this respondent with the Depar tmental Minister. The petitioner has averred that she being infuriated by such r efusal, created a scene in his office on 26.02.2010 demanding full payment of he r bills. She also tried to prevent the petitioner from issuing cheques to the e ligible contractors. According to him, being apprehensive that her endeavours w ould not bear results, she arranged the attendance of media personnel of the loc al T.V. channels at about 5.30 P.M. at his office while he was busy with his wor ks and with them barged into his room and created a fracas thereat. The petitio ner has alleged that inspite of his repeated requests, she indulged in lawlessne ss in his office and it was only at the intervention of the other contractors an d the employees that she alongwith the T.V. personnel left the room after about half an hour. She thereafter, was instrumental in causing this episode to be te lecast with the ulterior motive of maligning the petitioner with the design of v isiting him with detrimental consequences with the intervention of the departmen tal Minister, Respondent No.3. The petitioner, thus has alleged mala fide agains t this respondent-contractor and has imputed bias against the departmental Minis ter as well, vis-à-vis the impugned order of suspension. According to the petiti oner, his suspension was a predetermined decision being evident from the disclos ures in the interview of the departmental Minister with the local news channel. 05. This Court while considering the prayer for interim suspension o f the order impugned, decided in the negative taking note, inter alia of the sat isfaction of the authority concerned of the prima facie involvement of the petit ioner in the aforementioned incident. This Court, in its order dated 18.03.2010 also recorded the decision of the departmental Minister of conducting a fact fi nding inquiry relating thereto. 06. Dr. Ahmed has produced, before this Court extracts of the offici al records evidencing the steps leading to the suspension of the petitioner, the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the incident, as well as, the re port submitted in connection therewith. 07. Mr. Mahanta has argued, that there being no material or justific ation whatsoever warranting the suspension of the petitioner, the impugned order is per se illegal and is liable to be interfered with. The learned Senior Coun sel has urged that in absence of, even a semblance of evidence of the petitioner ’s involvement, in any act of moral turpitude in the discharge of his duties or the undesirability of his continuance in office, the impugned order of suspensio n passed on irrelevant considerations as a matter of course is non est in law. He has urged that the impugned action is vitiated by the partisan intervention o f the departmental Minister at the behest of Respondent No.5 and is afflicted by mala fide as well. Mr. Mahanta has also impeached the impugned order being devo id of reasons and as a yield of total non-application of mind. To reinforce his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in AIR 197 2 SC 554(V 59 C 110) (P.R. Nayak v. Union of India); AIR 1994 SC 2296 (STATE OF ORISSA v. BIMAL KR. MOHANTI); 1983 (2) GLR 459 (DHIRENDRA KUMAR BARTH AKUR Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS) and (1992) 1 GLR 309(PANNALAL GANGULI V ersus STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.) 08. In refutation of the above, Dr. Ahmed has maintained that the in stant challenge is not maintainable in law, as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available under the Assam Services (D iscipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964(hereinafter for short referred to as the Rules). While denying the imputation of mala fide/bias, the learned counsel has urged that as the impugned order was passed on an assessment of the prevalent situatio n by the concerned departmental authority, this Court in the exercise of its pow er of judicial review would not interfere therewith. This is more so, Dr. Ahmed has urged, as the preliminary inquiry fully substantiates the authenticity and sufficiency of the reasons calling for the impugned decision. According to the l earned Standing Counsel, a decision has already been taken to initiate a departm ental proceeding against the petitioner and that therefore judicial intervention at this stage ought to be eschewed. To buttress his submissions, Dr. Ahmed r elied on the decisions of the Apex Court AIR 1993 SC 115(SURENDRA KR. GYA NI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN) and 2000 (6) SCC 504(STATE BANK OF INDIA V HARBANS LAL ). 09. The pleadings and the documents available on record have been du ly considered in conjunction with the arguments advanced. That the impugned ord er of suspension followed an incident in the office of the petitioner on 26.02.2 010 is a matter of record. He however, has alleged that the same had been stage d by the Respondent No.5 with the end objective of besmirching his reputation an d credibility impelled by mala fide and baseless concoctions. The averments to this effect made in the writ petition, though as such have remained unresponded in absence of any affidavit by the respondents, the extracts of the official rec ords produced for the perusal of this Court not only seem to affirm the incident portraying the petitioner to be engaged in a scuffle with some reporters in his office premise on 26.02.2010, but also being telecast in a local T.V. channel. The letter/note dated 26.02.2010 of the departmental Minister to the Secretary, Irrigation referring to this incident with instructions to place him under susp ension discloses his prima-facie satisfaction, that the petitioner’s involvement in the manner depicted was derogatory of the image of the department. A refere nce to a compact disc containing the video footage of the episode is also deciph erable. The impugned notification on the face of it, is in exercise of power under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules pending drawal of a departmental proceeding against the pet itioner. In the preliminary report with reference to the same incident while af firming the involvement of the petitioner, the Chief Engineer (M.I.), Irrigation Department, has suggested further detailed inquiry on the related aspects, inte r alia verification of bills, measurement books, ongoing works etc. in connectio n with the projects under him. Having regard to the nature of the incident and the rival stands, it would be inexpedient for this Court at this stage to expres s any final opinion in the face of disputed questions of facts apparent on the f ace of the records. That the incident of the kind as above preceded his suspens ion is admitted by the petitioner, though he seriously disputes his voluntary in volvement therein. 10. Be that as it may, having regard to the office held by the petit ioner at the relevant point of time, the incident by any standard does not auger well for him or more importantly the Department. The allegation of mala fide a gainst the Respondent No.5 and collateral considerations qua the departmental Mi nister though have not been replied to as on date these do not per se accord a c lean chit to him without further factual probe. As it is, the available materia ls on record cannot be wholly disregarded to repudiate the action suggested by t he concerned departmental authority as an immediate remedial measure. The order of suspension, instructed by the departmental Minister on these materials thus c annot be ipso facto denounced as illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. If on an eval uation of the prevailing fact situation the highest departmental authority havin g decided such a course of action seemingly to salvage the credibility and probi ty of a department of the State Government it ought not to be readily trivialize d, unless construed to be wholly frivolous and uncalled for. Having regard to t he background in which the impugned order has been passed, the impugned decision for the present cannot be deprecated to be one taken as a matter of course. Fi ndings in the preliminary inquiry only fortify the basis thereof. The proposition contained in the authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner, though guard against mechanical imposition of suspension the same underline, as well the essentiality of the appraisal of a given fact situation to test the va lidity or otherwise of such a decision. No absolute prohibition on the power of suspension has been contemplated in any of the said decisions. The reasons in support of the order impugned herein, though not engrafted therei n are available in the contemporaneous records. The scope of scrutiny of the suf ficiency or adequacy of the said reasons, as well as the rationality of the sati sfaction of the departmental authorities derived therefrom is very constricted i n the exercise of this Court’s power of judicial review. This is more so, parti cularly, at a stage when a departmental inquiry has been contemplated to be init iated as is otherwise imminent. Judged as well by the relevant administrative in structions/guidelines prescribing the timeframe for completion of such a process , the proposed departmental action is not unduly delayed. 11. On a totality of the considerations, as hereinabove, this Court is not inclined in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere. Howeve r, as the petitioner remains under suspension, the State respondents, if they se ek to pursue the disciplinary proceeding, would strictly follow the timeframe fi xed and the procedure therefor as per the relevant administrative guidelines, as well as the Rules. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove bea ring on the incident leading to the impugned order, are wholly tentative and the departmental inquiry, if conducted, would be administered without being, in any way influenced thereby. The petition, in the above premise lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.