WP(C) 10/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. S. Kakati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bor a, learned Government Advocate, Assam. The records in original have been placed before the Court pursuant to th e order dated 7.1.2009. As the issues arising in the present case are capable of resolution on the basis of the said records, the Court is proceeding to pass fi nal orders in the writ petition at the motion stage. The petitioner who was working as the Superintendent, Central Jail, Guwa hati and has been placed under suspension by an order dated 2nd January, 2009 ha s assailed the aforesaid order. In view of the challenge made, the Court had required the learned Govern ment Advocate to place before the Court the records showing the decision making process leading to the impugned suspension of the petitioner. The records having been so placed, the Court has gone through the same. The records reveal that the suspension of the petitioner, by order dated 2nd January, 2009, was in connection with the escape of an under trial prisoner from the premises of the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 22.12.2008 to wh ich hospital the said under trial prisoner was shifted from the Central Jail, Gu wahati in the evening of 19.12.2008. The records further reveal that in connection with the incident, the Ins pector General of Prisons, Assam, had submitted a report dated 29th December, 20 08. The said report, which is elaborate, refers to all the relevant details and records the conclusion of the Inspector General of Prisons that the petitioner w as not at fault at the time of handing over of the under trial prisoner to the p olice on 19.12.2009. The said facts were placed before the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Assam as is evident from the records perused by t he Court. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Assam appears to have agreed with the conclusion reached by the Inspector General of Prisons a nd had proposed that the petitioner be transferred from the Guwahati Jail with t he rider that the petitioner was due to retire on 30.4.2009. The second suggesti on offered by the Principal Secretary was to the effect that the Medical and Hea lth Officer posted in the Guwahati Jail should be replaced by a suitable person. The Departmental Minister to whom the file was endorsed passed an order in the file for the suspension of the petitioner and for initiation of a departmental p roceeding against him. Regarding the replacement of the Medical and Health Offic er stationed in the jail premises, the suggestion had been accepted. Thereafter, the impugned order of suspension dated 2.1.2009 has been passed. The power of the Court to scrutinize the decision of the employer State to keep an employee under suspension is a highly circumscribed power and Courts normally leave matters like necessity or justification of the suspension to be d ecided by the employer State. However, in a case where the materials placed befo re the Court disclose that the employee suspended cannot be attributed with any overt or indiscreet act causing harm to public interest or even embarrassment to the Government, a suspension order has to be construed to be arbitrary. In the present case, the Inspector General of Prisons had elaborately set out the facts and details relevant to the matter and had indicated the absence of any untowar d act on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, the Inspector General of Pris ons took the view that the petitioner should not be made liable. The view expres sed by the Inspector General of Prisons was reiterated by the Principal Secretar y of the Home Department who suggested that the petitioner may be transferred ou t of the Central Jail at Guwahati. In such a situation, the decision to place th e petitioner under suspension, in the absence of any positive materials, cannot have the approval of the Court. The Court, therefore, has to hold, on the facts before it, that the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is wholly arb itrary and, therefore, the present would be one of the rare cases where interfer ence with the suspension order made must be made. Consequently, I allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 2.1.2 009 and direct immediate reinstatement of the petitioner who, however, may be tr ansferred to any other post as has been suggested by the Principal Secretary, Ho me.