WP(C) 5196/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saiki a, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department. As agreed to and in view of the subject matter involved and furthermore as records in original have been placed before the Court, the writ petition is b eing disposed of at the motion stage. The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 4th August, 2008 by which the petitioner who was working as a Medical and Health Officer in the Chalantapara MPHC, Bongaigaon was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. A perusal of the records in original would indicate that the petitioner had performed a MTP on one Parizat Baruah who had reported to the Primary Health Centre on 17.5.2008 along with her husband. Apparently, after the procedure was over, the patient had complained of pain in the abdomen for which she was refer red to a private nursing home at Goalpara. In the said private nursing home, one laparoscopic surgery was done in the course of which uterine perforation was fo und. The same was repaired. However, the condition of the patient did not improv e as a result of which she was shifted to GMC Hospital on 27.05.2008 where she p assed away on 1.6.2008. The materials on record further indicate that in respect of the incident , a police case was registered and the petitioner was arrested and detained in c onnection with the said case for over 48 hours. The said police case was registe red under Section 304/314 IPC. The records in original further indicate that a d epartmental proceeding has been drawn-up against the petitioner in the meantime and charge-sheet dated 6.2.2009 have been furnished to the petitioner. A perusal of the aforesaid charge-sheet would indicate that the core charge levelled agai nst the petitioner is one of negligence of duties and failure to render service upto the required standard. The petitioner has been under suspension for over six months now. The in cident had occurred in the course of performance of professional duties and the materials available at this stage would indicate that the allegations levelled a gainst the petitioner is one of negligence of duties i.e. in performing the surg ical procedure without following the required norms. In-fact, this is the prime charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 6.2.2009. The ch arge levelled by the aforesaid charge memo will be required to be enquired into on the basis of the relevant records which are already in the custody of the con cerned authorities. In the aforesaid facts, the Court is of the view that the al legations against the petitioner can very well be enquired into and the petition er can be appropriately dealt with in the course of the departmental proceeding which has already been initiated against him. Having regard to the totality of the facts, as stated above, the Court i s of the view that further suspension of the petitioner will not serve any purpo se. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to close this writ petition by interferin g with the suspension order dated 4.8.2008 and by directing the respondents to b ring the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner to its earlies t possible conclusion. Following the reinstatement of the petitioner that will n ow be required to be made, it will be open for the respondents to post the petit ioner in any station against any other post as may be considered appropriate. It is further made clear that this Court has not intended to express any opinion o n the merits of the charge/charges levelled against the petitioner which will be enquired into independently in the departmental proceeding. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.