WP(C) 1551/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri N.Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri AK Phukan, learned Advocate General, Assam. The writ petitioner, an Additional Director in the Directorate of Handloom and T extile assails an order dated 04.04.2008 placing him under suspension. The initi ation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by charge memo date d 21.04.2008, which had been served on him during the pendency of the present wr it petition has also been brought on record by means of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. A reading of the order of suspension dated 04.04.2008 indicates that the petitio ner has been placed under suspension on an allegation of indulging in sexual ac tivities with a lady contractor of ARTFED ( the petitioner was holding additiona l charge of the post of Managing Director of ARTFED) in his official vehicle on 29.03.2008. In the order of suspension dated 04.04.2008 it has been recorded tha t in respect of the aforesaid incident one Dharma Kanta Deka had filed a FIR on 29.03.2008 on the basis of which Noonmati PS Case No.103 of 2008 under Sections 294/506 IPC has been registered. Another FIR has been filed by one Sri Pasowan, Official Driver of the petitioner before the same Police Station on the basis of which Noonmati PS Case No.104/2008 has been registered. The order of suspens ion further indicates that a preliminary enquiry into the allegation levelled wa s held and the report of such enquiry having indicated incriminating materials a gainst the petitioner, the State Government had thought it proper to place the p etitioner under suspension. A reading of the charge memo dated 21.04.2008 indica tes that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is substantially on the same charges and allegations on which the suspension order dated 04.04.2008 is founded. Sri N.Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in course of h is argument, has contended that in view of the statement of the first informant Sri Dharma Kanta Deka, recorded on 17.04.2008 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. a serio us doubt arises as to the bonafides of the decision to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Placing the aforesaid statement recorded und er Section 164 Cr.P.C., Sri Dutta has submitted that in the said statement the first informant Dharma Kanta Deka has clearly stated that he was compelled to lo dge the FIR and that he was neither an eye-witness nor is he aware of the incid ent. The learned counsel has also referred to the FIR dated 29.03.2008 filed b y Sri Pasowan, official driver of the petitioner, wherein the said person had st ated that on the date in question, i.e., 29.03.2008, some persons had surrounde d the vehicle of the petitioner and had caused intimidation to the occupants of the said vehicle besides using of force against the driver, Sri Pasowan, i,.e., the first informant. On the aforesaid basis Sri Dutta, learned senior counsel fo r the petitioner contends that the departmental proceeding against the petition er will have no legs to stand and, therefore, the continued suspension of the pe titioner may be interfered with by the Court. Sri AK Phukan, learned Advocate General, who has appeared on behalf of the offic ial respondents has made available to the Court the Case Diary of Noonmati PS Ca se No.103 of 2008 as well as the records in original including the note-sheets m aintained, showing the reasons for the suspension of the petitioner and the deci sion making process leading to the said order of suspension. Sri Phukan has subm itted that as a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitione r, the said proceeding should be allowed to be concluded by the Departmental Aut hority, if required, by giving a direction for expeditious disposal of the same. The Court has perused the Case Diary of Noonmati PS Case No.103 of 2008 as well as the records in original placed before the Court. The Court has looked into the FIR filed by the driver of the petitioner as well as the statement of Sri Dh arma Kanta Deka, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., copies of which have been enclosed to the writ petition. In so far as a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the C ourt would like to observe that such a statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. The FIR filed by the driver also stands on the same footing. Though th e Court has looked into the Case Diary of Noonmati PS Case No.103/2008 as well a s the note-sheets maintained by the department showing the decision making proce ss in the instant case, the Court is of the view that it would be wholly inexped ient to record any opinion on what has been revealed by the perusal of the said records at this stage. All that can be said at the present juncture without cau sing any prejudice to any of the parties before the Court is that the decisio n to place the petitioner under suspension is in no way a hasty action. In th is regard, the Court would also like to observe that the opinion of the Legal Re membrancer and the approval of the Chief Minister of the State were also taken b efore placing the petitioner under suspension. In the present case the moot question is whether incident, as alleged, took pla ce at all. As a departmental proceeding on the same allegation has already been initiated, the Court is of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate for i t to even attempt to answer the said question on the basis of records made avail able. Instead the Court is of the view that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner should be brought to its earliest conclusion. In the additional affidavit dated 29.04.2008 the petitioner has expressed an a pprehension that the departmental authorities are proceeding in the matter with a pre-determined mind. Though the requisite foundation for the said apprehensio n expressed has not been very clearly indicated, the Court is of the view that t he cause of justice in the present case will be better served if the appointment of the Enquiry Officer is made not by the Departmental Secretary but by the Chi ef Secretary of the State. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam shall make such appointment forthwith and thereafter ensure that the proceeding agains t the petitioner is brought to its earliest conclusion in accordance with law, w hich period shall in no case exceed two months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. Beyond the above no order will be justified. Writ Petition shall consequently stand disposed of in terms of the above.