WP(C) 2581/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. S Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M R Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure G and K orders dated 15.11.2008 and 22.03.2010. By the first order the petitioner was placed under suspension as per the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rul es, 1964. Such suspension was in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on t he charge of allowing some illegal appointees to draw salary to the deprivation of genuine Teachers. By the Second order dated 22.03.2010 a de novo enquiry was ordered against the petitioner in respect of the charges brought against him. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit justifying their acti on in the matter. In the affidavit it has been sated that the earlier inquiry co nducted against the petitioner was abandoned with the order of de novo inquiry a s on the same set of charge there was another inquiry against another officer. W hen the first enquiry was concluded in December 2009, the second inquiry was com pleted in June, 2010. According to Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department the inquiry report is yet to be placed before the Disciplinary Authority. He sub mits that once the matter is placed before the Disciplinary Authority, same will be decided as per the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules. Mr. Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of th e conclusion of the proceeding against the petitioner, there is no justification in continuing the petitioner under suspension. He submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order of suspension is re quired to be revoked. In this connection, he has drawn attention of the Court th at the retirement of the petitioner from service is fast approaching on attainin g the age of superannuation in the month of November, 2010. If the inquiry proceeding against the petitioner has come to an end with the submission of the inquiry report, I see no reason as to why there should be any delay in the matter. As noted above, the enquiry report was submitted in Ju ne, 2010. In that view of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority is now required to take a decision in the matter after observing the formalities as envisaged u nder Rule 6(1) of the aforesaid Rules. After observing such procedure, the Disci plinary Authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Irrespective of the aforesaid exercises the Disciplinary Authority may a lso examine as to the justification or otherwise of continuing the petitioner un der suspension more so, when the proceeding against him has come to an end. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, pre ferably by 15th of November, 2010. As regards the validity or otherwise of the de novo inquiry, the question is le ft open to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority which may also be agitated b y the petitioner after the final order be passed by the Disciplinary Authority i n terms of this order. No opinion is expressed in this regard. With the above direction writ petition is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M R Pathak, learned Standin g Counsel, Education.