WP(C) 1686/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petition er and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3 though the said respondent has fil ed the affidavit in the Registry, which is available on record. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged th e order of suspension dated 25-03-2008 passed by the Principal and Secretary of Jhanji HNS College, Jhanji in the district of Sivasagar in contemplation of the drawal of the departmental proceeding for unauthorised absence in duty from 13-1 2-2007 till the date of issuance of such order. According to the petitioner, af ter placing him under suspension though a show cause notice dated 26-03-2008 was issued by the Principal and Secretary of the College asking the petitioner to s how cause on the basis of the allegations contained therein and the petitioner o n 01-04-2008 submitted his reply, no further departmental proceeding has been co nducted thereafter, by the College Authority and instead the petitioner has been kept under suspension. The Principal of the College, the respondent No.3, in th e affidavit filed in the Registry has admitted that the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 25-03- 2008 on the allegation of unauthorised absen ce. The issuance of the show cause notice and also submission of the reply by th e petitioner have also not been disputed. It has also been stated in the said a ffidavit that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice was found to be not satisfactory. Nothing, however, has been stated relating to fu rther action taken by the College Authority, i.e. the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and conduct of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. The Director of Higher Education in the affidavit dated 25-08-2010 has contended that apart from the allegation of unauthorised absence for which the petitioner was placed under suspension on 25-03-2008, a GR case be ing GR Case No.1259/2009 was registered against the petitioner under Section 498 (A) of the IPC on the basis of the allegation of physical and mental torture of his wife, which proceeding, however, has ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 06-07-2010. According to the Director, though the Principal of the College on 1 6-08-2010 has furnished a copy of the said judgment, since no resolution of the Governing Body relating to the withdrawal of the suspension has been forwarded t o the Director, no action in that regard could be taken by the Director. The Di rector in the affidavit has also not stated anything relating to the initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 25-03-2008 , i.e. more than 2‰ years from now. Though the charge memo was issued on 26-03- 2008 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 01-04-2008, no further actio n has been taken by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the College Authority, thou gh, according to the respondent No.3, the reply submitted by the petitioner for his unauthorised absence was not found to be satisfactory. The initiation of th e criminal proceeding and the consequential acquittal was neither the ground on which the petitioner was put under suspension nor the initiation of the departme ntal proceeding against the petitioner. From the order of suspension as well as the charge memo issued, it is apparent that the petitioner was put under suspens ion and the charge memo was issued on the allegation of unauthorised absence fro m duty only. As noticed above, though about 2‰ years have elapsed fro m the date of issuance of the order of suspension as well as the show cause noti ce and submission of reply, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the pe titioner has not proceeded further. The petitioner has been kept under suspensi on almost 2‰ years without completion of the disciplinary proceeding for no faul t of his. In view of the above, the respondent authorities includi ng the College Authority are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service by revoking the order of suspension with immediate effect. However, the authority w ould be at liberty to continue with the disciplinary proceeding initiated and to take a final decision on such disciplinary proceeding. The respondent authoriti es including the College Authority are expected to complete such departmental pr oceeding within a period of 6 (six) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated ab ove. No cost.