WP(C) 2502/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. D. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MK Mis ra, learned Standing counsel, Education Department. The grievance projected in this writ petition is against an orde r dated 26.3.08 by which the petitioner has been placed under Suspension pendi ng drawal of departmental proceedings in connection with the Palasbari PS Case N o. 49/08 under Section 498 (A) IPC. The pleaded case of the petitioner interalia is that he was serv ing as Sanskrit teacher at Uparhali High School, in the District of Kamrup, Assa m. On an incorrect allegations made by his wife alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498 (A) IPC and having lodged FIR to that effect with t he Palasbari Police Station the case was registered as Palasbari PS Case No. 49/ 08 under Section 498 (A) IPC. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was arrested by the I.O. on 19.3.08 and was kept in custody for a period of three days and w as released on 26.3.08. As the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours, the Inspector of Schools, KDC, Guwahati vide order dated 26.3.08 suspended the petitioner from service. Although in the order it is stated that the said suspen sion was made pending drawal of departmental proceeding, it is submitted that n o charge sheet and/or statement of allegations has yet been served upon the peti tioner by the authority. On the other hand, the petitioner is in the state of su spension for more than a year. The petitioner filed an application on 7.7.08 praying before the Inspector of Sc hool for revocation of his suspension order but the authority not having done a nything, the same prayer was repeated again by an application dated 1.3.09. It is contended that retention of the petitioner in custody was not made on account of any charge connected with his position as Govt. servant and continuance of his suspension rightly embrace the Govt. inasmuch as the charge against the pet itioner relates to his involvement in morale turpitude and accordingly, contin uance of his suspension is not contemplated under the proviso to Rule 6 (ii) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The case was fixed to-day and the learned Standing counsel was asked to obtain necessary instruction as to whether the representation filed by the petitioner p raying for vacating the suspension order has been disposed of or not but no suc h instruction is forthcoming. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the allegat ions made against the petitioner in the aforesaid police case and also for non disposal of the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his order of suspensi on, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the Inspector of Sc hools, Kamrup District Circle, who is the appointing authority of the petitioner , shall take up the applications of the petitioner filed on 7.7.08 and 1.4.09 pr aying for revocation of the suspension order and pass appropriate order thereon . While disposing the aforesaid application, the authority shall take note as t o whether the proviso to Rule 6(ii) of the Assam Service ( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1964 is applicable or not. It is needless to say that if it is found by the authority that the case of the petitioner is not attracted by the aforesaid provision, the authority shall vac ate the order of suspension. This shall be done within a period of two weeks fro m the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With this order, this writ petition stands finally closed.