Judgment & Order (Cav)

Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. Keeping in mind that a suspension order is by way of an administrative measure and cannot be construed as a punishment by any stretch of imagination in the strict legal sense, nonetheless, in a given case, the administrative action cannot stand divorced from the scrutiny of superior Courts under powers of judicial review. The scope of interference may be limited, but the order of suspension cannot per se seek shelter under a cloak of immunity. The effort would now be to ascertain whether the suspension order in question was passed mala fide and without there being any prima-facie evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the misconduct in question. Public interest, undoubtedly, assumes significance while deciding to place a government servant under suspension and/or in his continuance in office while disciplinary proceeding is pending or is contemplated. This is the test.

2. The petitioner herein was placed under suspension by order dated 7.6.2016 (Annexure-1), issued under the hand of the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department. He is the in-charge Forest Ranger, Palashbari Range, Kamrup East Division, having assumed office on and from 3.1.2016, pursuant to Notification dated 24.12.2015, transferring him from Burachapori Range, Nagaon Wild Life Division to the present Palashbari Range in the same capacity. Notwithstanding the subsequent order of transfer to Guwahati Range, which is the subject-matter of challenge in another writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2295/2016, the petitioner have continued to serve at Palashbari Range from the date of his joining on 3.1.2016.

3. Grounds assigned for placing the petitioner under suspension by the order dated 7.6.2016 is best illustrated by reproducing the same:

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPARTMENT

DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

ORDER BY THE GOVERNOR

O R D E R

No. FRS.33/2016/7 Dated Dispur, the 7th June, 2016

Whereas a report has been received from the Chief Conservator of Forest, Central Assam Circle, Kacharighat, Guwahati vide letter No. FG.16/CAC/illegalities/KE/Pt. III dtd. 03.06.2016 in respect of Shri Rabin Kr. Baishya, AFS, Range Officer, Palashbari Range under Kamrup East Division, Basistha in connection with the illegal earth cutting and transportation by miscreants.

Whereas Shri Rabin Kr. Baishya, Forest Ranger holding the charge of Range Officer, Palashbari Range has been reported as not seriously acting within his official capacity to prevent such illegal activities.

Now, therefore pending drawal of departmental proceeding the Government of Assam is pleased to place Shri Rabin Kr. Baishya, AFS, Range Officer, Palashbari Range Under Kamrup East Division, Basistha under suspension with immediate effect under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964.

The Head Quarter of Shri Rabin Kr. Baishya (U/S) is fixed in the office of the Palashbari Range under Kamrup East Division, Basistha, Guwahati.

During the period of suspension, Shri Rabin Kr. Baishya, Forest Ranger (U/S) is allowed to draw his subsistence allowance under the provision FR 53(I)(ii)(a) subject to condition under sub-Rule (2) of F.R. 53.

Sd/- U. Hazarika, IAS

Addl. Secretary to the Government of Assam,

Environment & Forest Department.

Memo No. FRS. 33/2016/7-A Dated Dispur the 7th June, 2016.

4. It thus transpire that the foundation is laid on the Report dated 3.6.2016 of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Central Assam Circle, Guwahati, while imputing allegations on the petitioner for illegal earth- cutting, allowing transportation of earth by miscreants and not seriously taking action within his official capacity to prevent such illegal activities.

5. To have the facts in its right perspective, notice is had to the aforesaid Report dated 3.6.2016, which is reproduced hereunder:

GOVT. OF ASSAM

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS:: CENTRAL ASSAM CIRCLE

KACHARIGHAT:: GUWAHATI

E-mail:conservator.cac@gmail.com

Letter No: FG.16/CAC/Illegalities/KE/Pt-III Dated 3rd June, 2016

To,

The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Assam,

Environment and Forest Department,

DISPUR

Sub: Illegal Earth cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti in Palashbari Forest Range, Mirza.

Ref: Our field visit dated 2nd of June, 2016.

Sir,

With reference to above I have the honour to inform you that during field visit on 2nd June, 2016, massive earth cutting was noticed at Gosaihat Natun Basti village under the jurisdiction of Palashbari Forest Range, Mirza. The location where earth cutting is going on is a revenue land just outside Maliata Reserve Forest. Scrutiny of records shows that 7 (seven) nos. of earth cutting permits have been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division during 2016 in Palashbari Range but the dates of validity of these permits have been already expired expect one which is from Kokjhar village locality for extraction of 10,500 cu. M. of earth. Thus, presently there is no permit for earth cutting from Gosaihat Natun Basti. During field visit, the matter was enquired from some local villagers of Gosaihat village, namely, Sri Satya Das, Smt Menaka Das, Sri Mantu Boro and Hemanta Boro, who told that earth cutting in this location was going on till 2-3 days back. Moreover, on 1st June, 2016 the Deputy Commissioner, South Kamrup found JCB and other machineries from the earth cutting location of Gosaihat Natun Basti and handed over to the Range Officer, Palashbari Range for taking further legal action. Since at present no permit exists for earth cutting from that location, all these extraction and transportation of earth is being done illegally.

This area falls under Palashbari Range and Sri Rabin Baishya is holding the charge of the Range Officer, Palashbari Range since 3rd January, 2016. It was found during the course of enquiry that Sri Rabin Baishya has not seriously acted to stop such illegal earth cutting. He has also not informed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division, Guwahati about the matter. This illegal hill cutting is happening within 3-4 km distance from his Range headquarter. But, during investigatin in Palashbari Range Office, Sri Rabin Baishya, Forest Ranger could not give any clear reply about this illegal earth cutting. It indicates his connivance with miscreants in illegal earth cutting and its transportation.

In view of the above, it is hereby requested to take action against Sri Rabin Baishya, Ranger Officer, Palashbari Range for his involvement in illegal mining of earth and consequential environmental damage. He may kindly be placed under suspension and departmental proceeding may be initiated against him under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

Yours faithfully,

(Dr. Satyendra Singh) IFS

Chief Conservator of Forests

Central Assam Circle

Guwahati.

6. The Report dated 3.6.2016 is annexed in both the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and in the Additional Affidavit dated 22.6.2016 filed by the petitioner. The Report records the findings of the field visit of the Chief Conservator of Forests on 2.6.2016. According to him, extensive earth-cutting was noticed at Gosaihat Natun Basti village under the jurisdiction of Palashbari Forest Range, Mirza, particularly, on the revenue land just outside Maliata Reserve Forest. The validity of the Permits authorizing earth-cutting on the said land and which had been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division during the year 2016, had since expired. For the present, there were no Permits authorizing earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti. Due enquiry was made with certain local villagers, as named in the Report, who disclosed that earth-cutting in the said location continued until 2/3 days back. Also, on 1.6.2016, the Deputy Commissioner, South Kamrup, had found JCB and other machineries at the earth-cutting site of Gosaihat Natun Basti and had handed over the same to the petitioner for taking further legal action. Finding was recorded to the effect that in the absence of existing permits allowing earth-cutting from the particular location, the extraction and transportation of earth was illegal. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, he neither took measures to stop the illegal earth-cutting nor reported the same to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division, Guwahati. Also, during the enquiry, the petitioner could not explain about the illegal earth-cutting despite the fact that the particular location is within 3/4 kilometers distance from the Range Headquarter. The petitioners connivance with the miscreants was imputed for his involvement in the illegal activities and, consequently, for causing environmental damage. Request was made to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department, for placing the petitioner under suspension and to initiate departmental proceedings against him under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

7. Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner, opens by saying that while issuing the order of suspension dated 7.6.2016, the Respondent authority did not act in good faith and ignored to take into consideration all relevant factors. The authority was swayed by irrelevant considerations and the order of suspension was rendered by acting arbitrarily and capriciously. According to Mr. Goswami, the basic facts relevant to the issue would go to show that the respondent authority did not fairy and honestly form the view by applying its mind to the relevant facts and, in fact, no exercise was undertaken to ascertain whether on the evidence available, it was at all expedient to place the petitioner under suspension and/or to impute allegations impacting his continuance in service pending drawal of departmental proceedings.

8. In support, Mr. Goswami submits that on account of litigations, the petitioner could effectively discharge duties at Palashbari Range on and from 1.3.2016. The earlier incumbent in the office, who was transferred out vice the petitioner, was on account of the fact that during his tenure at Palashbari Range, there were complaints of gross negligence of duty on his part and resultant loss of government revenue. The said incumbent was transferred as, in the opinion of the State respondent, it became expedient to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to remove him from Palashbari Range in order that no evidence or documents is tampered with. This aspect, according to Mr. Goswami, can be had from the Notification dated 26.2.2016 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The submission is that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat for the misdeeds of the earlier incumbent and despite evidence of gross negligence, no proceedings have yet been initiated against the said person, save and except, transferring him out from Palashbari Range.

9. The second aspect urged by Mr. Goswami is that the petitioner after taking over charge at Palashbari Range had, time and again, apprised his senior of the illegal activities in respect of unauthorized collection and utilization of earth at Palashbari Range. Illustration is made in respect of one Shree Gautam Construction Pvt. Ltd., where the petitioner by his letter dated 15.3.2016 had informed the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, of the excavation and utilization of 68,598 cubic metres of ordinary clay/earth along the river Brahmaputra at Sadilapur near Palashbari, which was in excess of the Permit quantity of 6,500 cubic metres. Request thereof was made for drawing up Offence Report for violation of the Rules and for realization of royalty for the excess quantity. Reference is also made to various other documents, either addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer or to the Officer-in-charge of Palashbari Police Station, requesting deployment of forest staff/police force to combat and control the untoward happenings at the Range. A spate of Offence Reports had also been issued by the petitioner, which were brought to the notice of the Divisional Forest Officer together with Seizure Lists.

10. As regards the earth-cutting activities in Maliata Hill, located in and around Gosaihat and Batiapara villages, Mr. Goswami submits that a complaint had been lodged with the Deputy Commissioner, South Kamrup district, by an organisation called Early Birds alleging rampant earth-cutting activities in that locality, with request to put an immediate cessation of the said activities. According to Mr. Goswami, the earth-cutting in Maliata Hill was duly authorized by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned with direction to the petitioner to issue Forest Permits accordingly. Sanctions by the Divisional Forest Officer are Annexures-30 to 33 and Forest Permits issued thereupon by the petitioner are Annexures-34 series. In the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner on 22.6.2016, documents have also been enclosed indicating the views expressed by the Chief Conservator of Forests as regards the failure on the part of the earlier incumbent to control the illegal activities of earth-cutting, felling of Sal saplings at Maliata Reserve Forest under Palashbari Range as well as the Fortnightly Diaries of the petitioner on inspections made at Maliata Reserve Forest, including his visits to Gosaihat Camp, Natunbasti, Maniary Tiniali etc. for the period from March to May, 2016. Prohibitory order dated 27.5.2016 issued by the competent authority under section 144 Cr.P.C. restraining encroachment, earth-cutting etc. in the hills of South Kamrup district together with orders constituting Task Forces to check the illegal activities, are also made part of the Additional Affidavit.

11. Having regard to the above, Mr. Goswami submits that in the backdrop of hard evidence demonstrating persistent actions/steps taken by the petitioner in good faith to curb and check occurrence of illegal activities at Palashbari Range, the order of suspension is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it. It is also contended that having ignored to take into consideration the relevant facts/evidence in favour of the petitioner, a legitimate inference can fairly be drawn that either the respondent authority did not honestly form the view or that in forming it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts. According to Mr. Goswami, the discretion so vested with the respondent authority has been utterly misused and abused. Further, the imputations made against the petitioner are shorn of any foundation and in that view of the matter there is no reason for continuance of the suspension order for the simple fact that suspension is only a step in aid to the ultimate result of the inquiry and in the present case there is no likelihood of the petitioner being found guilty. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Goswami places reliance in the case of (i) Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81 ; ((ii) Dhirendra Kumar Borthakur vs. The State of Assam & Ors. reported in (1983) 2 GLR 459 and (iii) State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126.

12. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Bora, learned counsel for the Environment & Forest Department, Government of Assam, submits that the petitioner has been stationed at Palashbari Range on and from 3.1.2016 pursuant to transfer order dated 24.12.2015. The subsequent Notification dated 26.2.2016, confirming his transfer and posting as in-charge Forest Ranger, Palashbari Range, was issued consequent upon revisiting the matter in terms of the Courts order dated 25.1.2016 passed in WP(C) 4/2016. In any event, it is submitted that the petitioner has been at Palashbari Range from the date of his joining, which is 3.1.2016. As regards the petitioners letter to the Divisional Forest Officer dated 15.3.2016 concerning excess excavation and utilization of ordinary clay/earth by Shree Gautam Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Bora submits that despite the fact that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the validity of the Forest Permit was until 28.2.2015, as evident from the letter of the Divisional forest Officer dated 5.1.2015 (Annexure-9), the said Company was allowed to carry out the works by the petitioner himself. This finds support from the petitioners letter dated 15.3.2016 itself, notwithstanding the validity of the Forest Permit expiring well before he joined at Palashbari Range. Referring to the documents at Annexures-17 to 28 of the writ petition, Mr. Bora contends that same takes care of any dispute and establishes that the petitioner has been effectively serving at Palashbari Range from January, 2016.

13. Mr. Bora further submits that the authorizations made by the Divisional Forest Officer and consequent Forest Permits issued by the petitioner have no nexus with the subject-matter in hand, in as much as, the present case concerns rampant earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti village under the same Palashbari Forest Range. According to Mr. Bora, there are apparently no valid Permits authorizing earth-cutting at the said location.

14. Taking it further, Mr. Bora refers to the categorical statements made in the Affidavit-in-opposition, touching upon the past conduct of the petitioner which had come to the notice of the respondent State. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there has been breach of discipline while discharging duties in various Ranges. In fact, on 11.2.2015 there was a Report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) indicating rampant illegal earth-cutting under Gorchuk Police Station, Jalukbari Police Station and Azara Police Station areas and drastic action against the petitioner was recommended. During the period of the Report, the petitioner was the Forest Ranger at Rani Range of Kamrup (Metro) district. To this end, a Show Cause Notice was also issued to the petitioner.

15. Mr. Bora also makes reference to the complaint dated 16.5.2016 lodged by the organization called Early Birds to the Deputy Commissioner, South Kamrup district, with copies to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Environment & Forest Department, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, the Prime Minister of India etc., together with photographs. The said complaint was in respect of unabated earth-cutting activities at places called Gosaihat, Batiapara and Maliata Hill under the Palashbari Range. The State Government in the Environment & Forest Department acted on it and had asked the Deputy Commissioner, South Kamrup district to take immediate measures and stringent actions against the culprits involved. The Deputy Commissioner along with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had visited the area on 1.6.2016 during the evening hours and found one JCB and a Dumper employed for cutting earth. Both the vehicles were apprehended along with a Falkland machine. The matter was reported to the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, who sent his staff to take possession of the vehicles and the machine. The illegal earth-cutting on 1.6.2016 had taken place in the Maliata Hill. A field visit to Gosaihat Natun Basti was also made by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Central Assam Zone, on 2.6.2016 and the Report thereof was sent to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department. The said Report, contents of which have been referred to above, formed the basis of the suspension order dated 7.6.2016.

16. Mr. Bora have placed reliance in the case of Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 , for the proposition that even if suspension may cause stigma, in certain cases, after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, the order of suspension cannot be treated as a punishment in the strict legal sense. Further, the scope of interference by the Court is very limited because it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order. The exercise of power of judicial review by the Court is only confined to such orders which are passed mala fide and without there being even a prima-facie evidence on record connecting the person concerned with the misconduct alleged.

17. Lastly, Mr. Bora submits that in the case in hand, the order of suspension was passed taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct on the part of the petitioner after making due inquiry and by considering the nature of evidence placed before the disciplinary authority, who on application of mind, decided to place the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceedings. Mr. Bora submits that having regard to the same, it was expedient to place the petitioner under suspension so as to refrain him from availing further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct and/or to dissuade him from causing impediment in the progress of the enquiry, which he may avail while in office.

18. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Records of the case, as produced by Mr. Bora are also perused. The records in original (File No. FRS. 33/2016) makes reference and contains the complaint lodged by the organization called Early Birds, the Report dated 3.6.2016 on the field visit made by the Chief Conservator of Forests on 2.6.2016 and the Notes of the various authorities of the department concerned leading up to the decision for placing the petitioner under suspension. The records disclose that on receipt of the complaint, the Minister concerned had also visited the spot and witnessed massive destruction. Also, on an earlier occasion, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) had furnished a Report dated 11.2.2015 indicating rampant illegal earth-cutting in areas falling under Gorchuk, Jalukbari and Azara Police Stations respectively and drastic action was recommended against the erring forest officials. However, the File containing the matter went missing in the department and the same was recorded in another File No. FRE.74/2011/Pt. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of the Report of the Deputy Commissioner, as during that time the petitioner was working as the Forest Ranger of Rani Range. The Note of the Principal Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, which records the visit of the Minister as well as of the Report dated 11.2.2015, also records that the petitioner is indulging in various illegal acts for long time repeatedly and the same has become a matter of grave concern. Accordingly, an observation was made to go by the proposal of the Chief Conservator of Forests for placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect and for drawing up disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Rules.

19. Having regard to the contents in File No. FRS. 33/2016, there is no room for doubt that the decision for placing the petitioner under suspension was based on materials evidencing illegal earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti during the time when the petitioner was stationed as the Forest Ranger in-charge. For all intents and purposes, it cannot be held that the suspension order was passed as a matter-of-course and on non-existent grounds. Whether it was arbitrary and unreasonable and whether on the materials available it became expedient to place the petitioner under suspension, is a different aspect of the matter.

20. To analyse the facts placed by the petitioner, first and foremost is that the petitioner has been at Palashbari Range effectively from 3.1.2016. As regards the petitioners letter dated 15.3.2016 addressed to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, a careful reading will perhaps stand detrimental to the interest of the petitioner rather than coming to his aid. A conjoint reading of the documents at Annexure- 9 and Annexure-10, it appears that whereas a direction was made by the Divisional Forest Officer to the then Range Officer for issuing Forest Permit, specifying the validity period upto 28.2.2015, the petitioner, on his assumption of charge much beyond 28.2.2015 had, in fact, instructed the Company concerned to carry out the works of excavation. The fact that the same was instructed to be done according to Rules and on payment of requisite royalty, cannot operate as a shield in favour of he petitioner. The Company was authorized to extract 6500 cubic metres of earth by 28.2.2015 but by 15.3.2016 had extracted 68,598 cubic metres of clay/earth. Not to lose sight, the petitioner joined at Palashbari Range on 3.1.2016.

21. The Offence Reports together with the Seizure Lists (Annexure-18 to 28 of the writ petition) are not relevant documents to the subject-matter in hand. Fact remains that there was unabated and rampant earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti village, for which imputations have been made against the petitioner. There is not a single Offence Report recording the illegal activities at Gosaihat Natun Basti village. All the Offence Reports are in respect of other locations. Similar is the case in respect of the Forest Permits issued by the petitioner on directions of the Divisional Forest Officer. Out of the said Forest Permits enclosed to the writ petition, the petitioner has placed one Permit issued pursuant to the order dated 14.3.2016 of the Divisional Forest Officer which, at least, was valid upto 10.4.2016 for earth extraction at Maliata Hill. Indeed, there are other Forest Permits enclosed in respect of extraction of earth at Maliata Hill, but all are prior in time. The issue herein is not on the alleged destruction of Maliata Hill but illegal earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti village, located outside Maliata Reserve Forest. No existing Forest Permit is placed on record authorizing earth-cutting at Gosaihat Natun Basti village, save the Forest Permit at page 87 of the writ petition which was valid upto 21.1.2016 in respect of a Permit holder whose place of residence is shown as Gosaihat Natun Basti.

22. The Fortnightly Diaries annexed to in the Additional Affidavit of the petitioner dated 22.6.2016, renders the day-to-day activities of the petitioner for the period from March 2016 to May 2016. These documents only throws light to the extent that visits had been made to various sites, including Gosaihat/Gosaihat Camp, and that instructions were left behind with the staff to keep strict vigil against illegalities and nothing further. These are facts not relevant to the issue in hand. So is the case with the constitution of Task Forces and/or demand for Police Force for patrolling the areas under the Palashbari Range to check illegal activities. As the Forest Ranger of an area, it cannot be comprehended that one would abdicate his duties and responsibilities, as required of him.

23. The most significant aspect of the matter is that no evidence is placed on record by the petitioner that he had informed his higher-ups of the earth-cutting activities at Gosaihat Natun Basti village. The same is also recorded in the Report dated 3.6.2016 of the Chief Conservator of Forests.

24. The power to place an officer serving the Government of Assam under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding is a statutory power flowing out from Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. No doubt, the discretion to suspend has to be exercised with utmost care, in as much as, there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability. The idea behind placing an officer under suspension is not to inflict punishment, which can be done only when the charges are proved, but to safeguard against further loss to the Government, to prevent manipulation of records and/or intimidation of witnesses and/or embarrassment to the Government in the public eye. In other words, there must exist circumstances (i) where the continuance in office of the officer concerned is likely to subvert discipline in the office where the government servant is working, (ii) where his continuance in office will be against wider public interest and (iii) where allegations have been made which, on a preliminary enquiry, reveals that a prima-facie case is made out which would justify that he be proceeded against in a departmental proceeding and there is a likelihood of the said proceeding answered against him.

25. In the present case, the Report of the Chief Conservator of Forests dated 3.6.2016 makes out a prima-facie case justifying suspension of the petitioner. The allegation so leveled requires to be enquired into in a departmental proceeding. The gravity of the allegations, if proved, may tantamount to serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the Government and/or misconduct. Public interest is also at stake. It is not a case that the petitioner has been placed under suspension without the authority honestly forming a view and/or without due application of mind. No case of mala fide on the part of the respondent authority is made out nor has the petitioner been able to establish that the suspension order was passed without prima-facie evidence connecting him to the allegations leveled.

26. It would be apposite to observe that submissions and imputations made in respect of the earlier incumbent, who had served as the Forest Ranger at Palashbari Range immediately prior to the petitioner, are neither discussed nor any findings recorded, in as much as, the said person is not arrayed as a party respondent in the present writ petition.

27. Having regard to the above, interference of this Court under powers of judicial review is not warranted. There is no good ground to interfere with the order of suspension dated 7.6.2016.

28. While parting with the case a caveat is expressed. It is well settled that in all cases of suspension, elementary justice demands that the period of suspension should be reduced to the barest minimum. It is, therefore, necessary to conclude the proceedings so drawn up as expeditiously as possible. Charges and statement of allegations should be served within three months from the date of suspension and in case it is not reasonably practicable to prepare and serve the charges within three months and the continued suspension of the officer is considered necessary in public interest, the authority concerned should move the department concerned well before the expiry of the three month period detailing the nature of the allegations and the reasons for which charges could not be prepared so that advice from the Department can be had whether any further extension of the period of suspension should be permitted or not. This Court hopes and trusts that the aforesaid principles and procedures are duly complied with by the respondent authorities.

29. On the discussions and findings above, there being no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Records produced by the Mr. Bora are returned herewith. It is clarified that the discussions above have been made only for determination of this present case and shall have no bearing in the departmental proceedings that may be drawn up against the petitioner. It shall proceed and culminate on its own merits.