w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sayyed Alam & Others v/s State of Assam & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ALAM & CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60210WB1946PLC014227

    WP(C) No. 5568 of 2016

    Decided On, 15 December 2016

    At, High Court of Gauhati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

    For the Petitioners: K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, P. Mahanta, Advocate. For the Respondents: M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, A. Verma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1.All the three writ petitions being laid on the same premises, the same are heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Challenge made are to the individual orders of suspension, all dated 10.09.2016. The writ petitioners are employed as District Transport Officers (DTO) under the establishment of the Transport Department, Government of Assam. The petitioner in WP(C) 5568/2016 is posted at Karbi Anglong District whereas the petitioner in WP(C) 5569/2016 is posted at Tinsukia District and the petitioner in WP(C) 5725/2016 is serving at Srirampur M.V. Check Gate in the District of Kokrajhar.

2. Save some variations in the individual orders of suspension, the imputations made are common to all. For ready reference, the relevant extracts of the said three orders of suspension are reproduced hereunder:

(i) WP (C) 5568/2016:

"ORDER

Syed Alam, District Transport Officer and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Karbi-Anglong District is placed under suspension for dereliction of duty, disobedience and adoption of malpractice in carrying out assigned duties.

This will come into effect immediately.

The Commissioner of Transport, Assam will enquire into the matter and submit report within 15 days.

Sd/ (A. Agnihotri, IAS)

Commissioner & Secretary

Transport Department, Dispur

Memo No. TMV/205/2005/I

Dated 10th September'2016"

(ii) WP(C) 5569/2016:

"ORDER

Sri Nripen Kalita, District Transport Officer and Secretary , Regional Transport Authority, Tinsukia District is placed under suspension for dereliction of duty, disobedience and adoption of malpractice in carrying out assigned duties.

This will come into effect immediately.

Shri Maniruddin Ahmed, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tinsukia District is allowed to hold the post of District Transport Officer and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tinsukia temporarily until further order.

The Commissioner of Transport, Assam will enquire into the matter and submit report within 15 days.

Sd/ (A. Agnihotri, IAS)

Commissioner & Secretary

Transport Department, Dispur

Memo No. TMV/205/2005/II

Dated 10th September'2016"

(iii) WP (C) 5725/2016.

"ORDER

Shri Asgar Ali Ahmed, Enforcement Inspector and in charge of Srirampur M.V. Check Gate is placed under suspension for dereliction of duty, disobedience and adoption of malpractice in carrying out assigned duties.

This will come into effect immediately.

Sd/ Illegible

Commissioner & Secretary

Transport Department, Dispur

Memo No. TMV/205/2005/V

Dated 10th September'2016"

3. Before adverting to the facts of the cases, the position as obtaining today is that this Court while issuing notice have also stayed the operation of the orders of suspension. This is how the Interlocutory Applications i.e. IA 1875/2016 in WP(C) 5568/2016 and IA 1865/2016 in WP(C) 5569/2016 came to be filed by the State respondents seeking modification and/or for vacating the interim orders. On record, no Interlocutory Application has been filed in WP(C) 5725/2016.

4. Facts to be noticed is that a W.T. Message dated 07.09.2016 was addressed to all the Assistant Commissioners of Transport, the District Transport Officers and those In-charge of Motor Vehicle Check Gates in the State of Assam for their attendance in a meeting scheduled on 10.09.2016 at the Assam Administrative Staff College, Khanapara, Guwahati. The Agenda for discussion in the meeting were as follows:

"Points to be discussed in the District Transport Officers' Conference to be held on 10/09/2016 in the Room No. 309 at the Assam Administrative Staff College from 9.00 AM onwards

1. Collection of Revenue

- Issue of Demand Notices.

2. Status of Computerization

- (Vahan, Sarathi, Connectivity issues, AMTRON & BSNL related issue).

- Ease of transaction pertaining to Driving Licence and Registration Certificate for general public-Simplification of procedure thereof.

3. Maintenance of Register, Records, condition of record room.

4. Enforcement-

- Status of offence cases disposed-undisposed, fine collection etc.

- Number of FIR lodged.

- Submission of performance report of Enforcement Inspectors.

- Mechanism for enforcement.

- Issues of over-loading, drunken driving & other issues related to Road Safety.

- Plying of un-registered tractors & trailors.

5. Fitness Certificate-

- Conditions of fitness.

- Number of fitness issued and rejected.

- Impounding of Fitness.

- Submission of Performance Report of Motor Vehicle Inspectors.

6. Permit

- Non-Renewal of Permit and Status thereof.

- Agent Licence-Number of Agent operating with and without valid Licence and action taken thereof.

- RTA Board Meeting held during last three years.

7. Weigh-Bridge

- List of Weigh-Bridges.

- Number of Inspection carried out and condition of the Weigh-Bridge.

- Renewal of Trade Licence thereof.

8. E-Rickshaw.

9. Personal Issues.

10. Driving Training School.

11. Miscellaneous."

5. According to the petitioners, the meeting of 10.09.2016 was presided over by the Departmental Minister. The District Transport Officers who had gathered there were asked to produce Statements with regard to the quantum of revenue collected in their respective Districts for the year 2016-2017, up to August 2016. The petitioner in WP(C) 5568/2016 provided figures of having collected an amount of Rs.2,33,14,425/- until August,2016. As for the petitioner in WP(C) 5569/2016 it was Rs.9,60,32,615/- until the same period and for the petitioner in WP(C) 5725/2016 it was Rs.96,00,000/-. Their performances were met with derision. As a follow-up to the discussion and alleged dismal performance to achieve the targeted augmentation of revenue, the impugned orders of suspension followed suit. The orders, as indicated above, were issued on the same date of the meeting.

6. On behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, submits that in so far as Sri Sayyed Alam [WP(C) 5568/2016] is concerned, he joined as DTO at Karbi Anglong on 31.03.2016. As regards Sri Nripen Kalita [WP(C) 5569/2016], he joined as DTO at Tinsukia on 29.02.2016, whereas Sri Asgar Ali Ahmed [WP(C) 5725/2016] joined as DTO at Srirampur M.V. Check Gate, Kokrajhar on 06.04.2016. Mr. Choudhury submits that in respect of the quantum of revenue collected for the year 2016-2017 (up to August, 2016), the official figures of Karbi Anglong District recorded revenue collection of 2.33 Crores out of Rs.3.0 Crores, aggregating to 77.67%; Tinsukia District to an amount of Rs. 9.60 Crores out of Rs.12.15 Crores, being 79.01% and Srirampur M.V. Check Gate to an amount of Rs.0.96 Crores out of Rs.1.85 Crores, aggregating 51.89%. Submission made is that the impugned action had been resorted to for reasons other than bonafide. It is contended that the petitioners have been made scapegoats and victims of circumstances only for promoting a media-hype so as to demonstrate the pro-activeness of the respondent authorities. Further contention is that the short-fall in the targeted collection of revenue up to August 2016 could not have been acted upon to insinuate misconduct on the part of the petitioners. According to Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the short-fall can be an outcome of various factors, namely, reduced violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules, ban on over-loading of trucks following strict adherence to the Apex Court's decision in Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India, reported in (2005)12 SCC 642, orders of the National Green Tribunal banning operation of mining activities in the State of Meghalaya. It is submitted that the short-fall, ipso facto, do not amount to dereliction of duty, disobedience and adoption of malpractice in carrying out assigned duties.

7. Further contention of Mr. K. N. Choudhury is that the underlying tenor of the impugned orders reflects that the same had been passed by way of penalty, which is not permissible in law without affording opportunity of hearing. The core submission is that the orders of suspension are, ex-facie, opposed to the usual practice adopted for exercising powers of suspension. Submission made is that the same are utterly contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after called the Rules of 1964), in that, the orders of suspension have neither been issued in contemplation and/or pending any disciplinary proceedings. According to Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the mention made in the impugned orders that the Commissioner of Transport will enquiry into the matter and submit report within 15 (fifteen) days, itself discloses the mandatory, procedural and ethical defects in the orders, going to the root of the case. The said orders being issued with pre-conceived mind, with jurisdictional error and as opposed to the Rules of 1964, Mr. K.N. Choudhury submits that the same are liable to be set aside and/or be quashed.

8. On the issue of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1964, Mr. K.N. Choudhury contends that exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. It is contended that in any case it does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when the orders complained of are per se invalid as being contrary to law. Taking a leaf out of the case in Union of India v. J. Ahmed , reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286, which is a case pertaining to what generally constitutes misconduct, especially in the context of disciplinary proceedings entailing penalty, Mr. K.N. Choudhury submits that any failure or short-fall on the part of the petitioners to come up to the highest expectations or lacking in aptitude or in qualities of leadership would not constitute as a failure to maintain devotion to duty, far from constituting misconduct. It is therefore contended that the alleged short-fall in revenue collection could not be made the foundation for making imputations of dereliction of duty and disobedience requiring suspension from service.

9. Lastly, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, placing reliance in the case of Rabin Kumar Baishya v. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2016(3) GLT 872 submits that although a order of suspension is an administrative action, the same cannot stand divorced from the scrutiny of superior Courts under the powers of judicial review.

10. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the State respondents submits that without going into the findings of the enquiry that came about pursuant to the orders of suspension, the relevant contemporary records would itself go to show that the orders of suspension had been issued in public interest and as an administrative measure. According to him, the poor performance on the part of the writ petitioners resulting in loss to the Government exchequer coupled with their negligence and lackadaisical attitude made it imperative to place the petitioners under suspension. He subtly contends that the failure and short-fall on the part of the petitioners also stood vindicated in the Enquiry Reports. Because of the lapses and indifferent approach demonstrated by the writ petitioners, Mr. M.K. Choudhury submits that no interference to the orders of suspension are warranted, as otherwise it may send wrong message to other recalcitrant and careless incumbents - the aim being to instill a degree of discipline and dedication to other errant officials.

11. Further contention of Mr. M.K. Choudhury is that the State reserves unqualified power to place an officer under suspension, if such action do not demonstrate any arbitrariness. In the same breath, Mr. M.K. Choudhury contends that in a case where an employee is placed under suspension, the adequacy and/or sufficiency of material for placing the officer under suspension cannot be looked into by the Court. Reliance is placed in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 (1) as well as in Prafulla Kumar Deka (Dr.) v. Gauhati University and Ors., reported in 2006 (Suppl.) 1 GLT 639. Mr. M.K. Choudhury also submits that the writ petitions in the present form are not maintainable in view of the efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioners by way of appeal under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1964.

12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. The power to place a Government servant under suspension have received statutory recognition under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964. Rule 6(1)(a), which is relevant in the present context, gives power to the State to place a Government servant under suspension under two circumstances, that is, where a disciplinary proceeding against the Government servant is contemplated or where a disciplinary proceeding is pending against such Government servant. Indeed, it is an administrative action and do not fall in the realm of punishment. Public interest should be the guiding factor in deciding to place a Government servant under suspension and while taking such a decision, the Disciplinary Authority is required to exercise discretion with utmost care and on sufficient justification. The idea behind placing an officer under suspension is obviously not to inflict punishment but to safeguard against further loss to Government, manipulation of records, intimidation of witnesses or embarrassment to Government in the public eye. The power of suspension has to be exercised for a legitimate purpose connected with the need to maintain the purity of administration or for the upkeep of the proper standards of discipline and morale in the service and to maintain public trust. The Employer is undoubtedly the best judge to assess the situation while exercising discretion of placing a Government servant under suspension. Although it is not for the Court to delve into the sufficiency of the reasons, however, the relevancy of the grounds for the suspension coupled with the bonafide action of the State respondents are well within the parameters for the exercise of powers of judicial review in matters relating to suspension. Despite the fact that the power to suspend is an administrative measure, it has to be sparingly exercised and wherever done it is imperative that utmost caution and circumspection should be exercised while passing orders of suspension. Justification cannot be divorced from administrative discretion. The same has to go hand in hand to receive approval of the Court.

13. On behalf of the State respondents, the Office Records in original have been produced. The Records of discussion of the meeting held on 10.09.2016 in Room No. 309 of the Assam Administrative Staff College, Khanapara, Guwahati have also been produced. The participation of the District Transport Officers in the said meeting is also recorded in the form of Attendance Sheet. A perusal of the Records of discussion reveals that save and except the District Transport Officers, in charge of Kamrup (Enf), Kamrup (RTA), Kamrup (Rural), Nalbari, Sonitpur and Baksa, which had achieved their revenue targets up to August 2016, the other remaining Districts have not been able to reach the target so fixed. Displeasure was expressed by the Commissioner & Secretary and steps for increasing collection of Government revenue through better enforcement and monitoring was indicated. Complaints received on over-loading of trucks was also noticed, which were pre-dominant in districts having borders with neighboring States, like the districts of Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Kokrajhar, Karbi Anglong, Dhubri and Sivasagar. The Departmental Minister stressed upon the District Transport Officers of Nalbari, Sivasagar, Tinsukia, Dibrugarh and Jorhat for gearing up revenue collection and also expressed displeasure on the instances of over-loading of trucks from Karbi Anglong District to various places within the State as well as to the neighboring States. The Departmental Minister also expressed that disciplinary action be taken against those officers whose performance was not satisfactory and against whom there are allegations or are reported to be of doubtful integrity. As regards short-fall of revenue, the District Transport Officer of Sonitpur was asked to make explanation. The functioning of the Motor Vehicle Check Gate at Digarkhal was derided upon indicating that the matter had reached up to the level of the Chief Minister of Assam and that the M.V. Check Gate Digarkhal is one of the worst performer in terms of revenue collection. The Meeting of 10.09.2016 ended with the Note of the Departmental Minister to the effect that the performance of the District Transport Officers/Motor Vehicle Inspectors/Enforcement Inspectors will be monitored regularly and all issues should be taken up with the Commissioner & Secretary, Secretary (Transport) and the Commissioner of Transport of Assam so as to begin a new journey bringing innovative and positive ideas in the next review meeting.

14. The follow-up of the aforesaid Minutes of discussion in the meeting of 10.09.2016 was the Note of the Additional Secretary, Transport Department in File No. TMV/205/2005, which is a file pertaining to transfer and posting of DTO/MVI/EI. The Note dated 10.09.2016, which was put up to the Commissioner & Secretary, revealed that in the discussion held on 10.09.2016 at the Assam Administrative Staff College, Khanapara, the DTOs mentioned therein could not reply satisfactorily the reason of their failure to collect revenue proportionately against the set targets in their respective districts. Also, their casual approach to enforce Rules to detect overloaded trucks resulted in frequent fatal accidents and violation of Rules and Court's orders. As such, a proposal was made that an enquiry be ordered against the officers whose conduct during discussion was found questionable. In the said Note dated 10.09.2016, the names of 5 (five) officers have been mentioned, including that of the three writ petitioners herein. It was proposed that pending submission of enquiry, they be placed under suspension since their presence in the office and handling of office records may adversely affect the enquiry. The Note of 10.09.2016 also recorded the proposal for transferring 4 (four) other officers on grounds of their performance not being at all satisfactory as well as for issuing Show Cause notice to 6 (six) other officers asking them to reply to the charges of their casual performance in collection of revenue, failure in enforcing and detecting over-loaded vehicles etc.

15. The records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016 and that of the Office Note put up by Additional Secretary, Transport Department on the very same date gains utmost significance in deciding the present writ petitions. One of the core question to be decided is whether the office records demonstrates any relevant grounds for the suspension. Relevancy and not the sufficiency of reason is the focal point for deciding on the action of the State respondents. A perusal of the Records of discussion of the meeting dated 10.09.2016 in the Assam Administrative Staff College do not categorically point to any direct and specific lacunae in the performance of the petitioners. No doubt, the proceedings disclose that apart from Kamrup (Enf), Kamrup (RTA), Kamrup (Rural), Nalbari, Sonitpur and Baksa, the other remaining Districts could not achieve the revenue targets up to August, 2016. In respect of overloading of trucks it was noticed that the same was pre-dominant in the districts having borders with neighboring States like the districts of Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Kokrajhar, Karbi Anglong, Dhubri and Sivasagar. Despite the above, the District Transport Officer of Sonitpur was particularly asked to explain the reason of short-fall of revenue. Notice was also had to the functioning of the Motor Vehicle Check Gate at Digarkhal as being one of the worst performers in terms of revenue collection.

16. The Meeting of 10.09.2016, in so far as monitoring the performance of the officials and steps for increasing productivity and efficiency of the officials, is undoubtedly a positive approach. But it would be another thing to decide upon any action to be taken against the writ petitioners on the basis of the discussions of the Meeting of 10.09.2016. The Note of the Additional Secretary dated 10.09.2016 for placing the writ petitioners under suspension on grounds of having failed to reply satisfactorily the reason of their short-fall to collect revenue proportionately against the set targets as well as on their casual approach to enforce Rules to detect overloaded trucks, do not find any specific mention in the records of discussion of the Meeting of 10.09.2016. The Note dated 10.09.2016 does not stop at that only. It goes on to say that adoption of malpractice in detecting overloaded vehicles, involvement of middlemen in issuing Driving Licence/Permits/Fitness Certificate also cannot be ruled out. On the said allegations, it was proposed that an enquiry be ordered against the petitioners along with two others and that pending the enquiry they be placed under suspension since their presence in the office and handling the office records may adversely affect the enquiry. The Note of 10.09.2016 may have independently revealed strong ground and justification for placing the petitioner under suspension. However, the same has to be read with the records of discussion of the Meeting dated 10.09.2016, which formed the basis upon which the Note dated 10.09.2016 could have been prepared. Apart from the action proposed to be taken against the writ petitioners, the Note dated 10.09.2016 also categorically mentioned the names of 6 (six) other officers against whom proposal was made for issuing Show Cause Notice asking them to reply as regards their casual approach in the collection of revenue, failure in enforcement to detect overloaded vehicles etc. The six officers also included District Transport Officers, who in the records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016 were stated to have achieved their revenue targets up to August 2016. The reason for making mention of the aforesaid aspect is only to reach an opinion that the Note put up by the Additional Secretary on 10.09.2016 was not based solely on the merits of the discussion of the meeting dated 10.09.2016 held at the Assam Administrative Staff College.

17. Turning to the decisions now, in Union of India v. J. Ahmed (supra), the Apex Court observed that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would certainly not constitute misconduct or a failure to maintain devotion to duty. Applying the ratio to the present cases, indeed the petitioners could not achieve the set targets up to August 2016 in augmenting revenue. Records reveal that their's is not an isolated case. Nor their performance in collecting revenue is at a pittance. Poor performers and/or those not reaching up to the standard have either been transferred or issued Show Cause Notice to explain their casual approach, either in respect of collection of revenue or in enforcing detection of over-loaded vehicles. Even the records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016 ended with the note that all must begin a new journey, bringing innovative and positive ideas in the next review meeting. Surely, the performance of the petitioners as regards the short-fall in the collection of revenue cannot be construed as high as committing misconduct.

18. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) the unqualified right of the employer to place an employee under suspension has been recognized, which has received statutory recognition under the service rules framed by various authorities, including the Central and State Governments. For state government employees serving the Government of Assam, the provisions under Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 prescribes and empowers the competent authority to place such an employee under suspension. In the context of the present cases, Rule 6 (i) (a) envisages two situations under which a government servant can be placed under suspension-either where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against such government servant or where a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. The unqualified right of the employer, under Rule 6(i)(a) of the Rules of 1964, is hedged with the fulfillment of mandatory requirements. In Dhirendra Kumar Barthakur v. State of Assam, reported in (1983) 2 GLR 459, a Division Bench of this Court interpreted Rule 6(i)(a) of the Rules of 1964 and held that contemplated or pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against the government servant is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of suspension. Unless the condition precedent is fulfilled, the authority concerned has no power to place the government servant under suspension. In the present cases, the impugned orders of suspension makes no mention of the existence of the conditions envisaged under Rule 6(i)(a). On this count alone, the orders of suspension stands to be vitiated.

19. In Prafulla Kumar Deka (supra), this Court had considered the scope of judicial review in matters of suspension. It was held that the power to place an employee under suspension inheres in the employer and the same has to be recognized in the interest of sound administration, as a full investigation into the alleged misconduct or misdeed of the employee is bound to be time consuming. A caveat was expressed that the exercise of such power by the employer should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or oppression. It has always been the endeavour of the Court to ensure that the power of suspension is exercised for a legitimate purpose connected with the need to maintain the purity of administration and to maintain public trust. It was also held that the employer is the best judge of the situation to exercise the power to suspend. It was emphasized that sufficiency of the reasons for placing an employee under suspension has never been a matter of judicial determination. It is the relevancy of the grounds for the suspension and the bonafide action of the authorities concerned that have been the yardsticks in the exercise of judicial review in matters relating to suspension. As such, Court has a very limited role while scrutinizing actions relating to suspension of employees. In the instant case, the records produced before this Court in the form of the Note of the Additional Secretary discloses the grounds for suspension and the action of the State respondents. Whether the same had been done on relevant grounds and bonafide is the core question. While adjudicating on the issue, this Court is not at all concerned with the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons in placing the petitioners under suspension. As alluded to above, the records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016 do not make out any ground against the writ petitioners necessitating the exercise of the power to place them under suspension. The performance of the petitioners were not derided categorically. Only a general criticism was made covering many other districts as well with regard to performance not reaching up to the expected level. The functioning of the Motor Vehicle Check Gate at Digarkhal was, however, mentioned as being one of the worst performers in terms of revenue collection. A different picture emerged in the Note of the Additional Secretary dated 10.09.2016, although the same was required to be prepared on the merits of the records of discussion of the meeting dated 10.09.2016. The petitioners were named in the said Note with imputations of having failed to collect revenue proportionately against set targets, on their casual approach to enforce rules to detect overloaded goods vehicles, adoption of malpractice in detecting overloaded trucks and the involvement of middlemen in issuing Driving Licence/Permits/Fitness Certificate. On the said allegations it was proposed that an enquiry be initiated and meantime they be placed under suspension. The relevancy of the grounds assigned in the Note of the Additional Secretary requiring that the petitioners be placed under suspension is itself suspect as it has no basis or corroboration with the records of discussion of the meeting dated 10.09.2016. The consequential action taken on the Note of the Additional Secretary do not fall within the realm of a bo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nafide action taken by the respondent authorities. The decision-making process, whether in exercising powers under Rule 6(i)(a) of the Rules of 1964 or in giving true meaning and interpretation of the records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016, are far from having been exercised for a legitimate purpose. 20. It is a settled principle that the authority on whom discretion is vested to exercise power of suspension must genuinely address itself to the matter before it. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant consideration and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations and must not act by disregarding the conditions precedent envisaged under the statute that gives it power to act. If any of these principles stands violated, it will be a plain case of excess or abuse of discretionary power. The present cases clearly spells out that the orders of suspension had been issued on irrelevant grounds, having regard to the records of discussion of the meeting of 10.09.2016 as well as by abusing discretionary power by not adhering to the letter and spirit of Rule 6(i)(a) of the Rules of 1964. 21. On the question of the petitioners not having availed the efficacious and alternative remedy under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1964, it is suffice to say that exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The orders of suspension having been issued de hors the conditions envisaged under Rules 6(i)(a) of the Rules of 1964 as well as without any basis or substance, the plea of efficacious and alternative remedy cannot be accepted to non-suit the petitioners in invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this respect, reference can be had to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1147. 22. Before parting with the present cases, mention is made to the order dated 21.11.2016 passed in the Interlocutory Applications recording the submissions of senior counsel representing the State that the said Interlocutory Applications can well be considered as the stand of the State respondents. One of the statements made in the Interlocutory Applications is to the effect that lifting of the suspension order would be contrary to public interest, effective administration and the purpose for instilling degree of discipline and dedication upon other errant officials. This statement, perhaps, reflect the mindset of the respondent authorities in placing the petitioners under suspension. No further observation is expressed in this regard. 23. For all the discussions and findings above, the orders of suspension dated 10.09.2016 issued against the three writ petitioners cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be set aside, which is accordingly done. Resultantly, all the three petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 5568/2016, WP(C) 5569/2016 and WP(C) 5725/2016 stands allowed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Records produced before this Court be returned forthwith.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-06-2020 Nabi Alam @ Abbas Versus State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
10-04-2020 Shadab Alam Versus State High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Mahey Alam Versus State High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-02-2020 Md Shafique Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Md. Mofazzular Rahman & Others Versus Md. Sarfaraz Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-01-2020 Mokhtar Alam @ Md Mokhtar Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-01-2020 S.M. Zaheer Alam Versus National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-01-2020 Parwez Alam @ Md Prawez Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-12-2019 Tanveer Alam Versus Dr. Mohammad Massod Alam & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-11-2019 Saghira Bano Versus Mahmood Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-09-2019 Nizamuddin @ Saiyad Nizamuddin Versus Saiyad Shahnawaz Alam @ Laddan & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-09-2019 Ghulam Yazdani & Another Versus Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, Malakpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Hony. Secretary, Nawab Mahboob Alam Khan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-08-2019 M/s. Amritrashi Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Versus J.B. Rayees Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-08-2019 Md. Afroj Alam @ Md. Afaroj Alam @ Afroj Alam & Another Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Noor Alam Mollah & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Md. Sarfaraz @ Md. Sarfaraz Alam & Another Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-05-2019 For the Petitioner: I. Alam, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------------- High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2019 A. Alam Pasha Versus Ravishankar High Court of Karnataka
26-04-2019 Md Noor Alam & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-04-2019 Parwez Khan @ Parwez Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-04-2019 Mofikul Alam Molla & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-01-2019 Jane Alam Molla & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-01-2019 Sukla Chakraborty Versus Abed Alam & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2019 Safi @ Safik Alam, (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-01-2019 Shafiuddin Versus Mashur Alam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-01-2019 Md. Mahfooz @ Md. Mahfooz Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-10-2018 Goudhul Alam Meera Maideen Pallivasal, Rep. Through its President Versus Mahaboob John & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-10-2018 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan, Aurangabad Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nashik Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
24-09-2018 Mohd. Alam & Another Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-09-2018 Parvez Alam Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-09-2018 Sk. Jahangir Alam Versus The Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-08-2018 Dr. Mahboob Alam I.P.S. (Retd.) Versus The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2018 Md. Iftakar Alam & Others Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2018 Md. Parvez Alam & Others Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-08-2018 Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Imteyaz Alam National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2018 M/s. Gahana Mahal Rep. by Amjad Alam Versus Sadaf Safique West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Beeru Alias Shah Alam Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-07-2018 Md. Ibraj Alam, East Sikkim & Another Versus The State of Sikkim Through, The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Sikkim, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
12-07-2018 M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sk. Qumru Alam & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-07-2018 Noor Alam Khan Versus Hasina Bano Noor Alam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-06-2018 Alhaj Dr. Md. Meraj Alam Versus Rehena Begum High Court of Gauhati
27-04-2018 Nafiz Alam Nurul Hudda Shaikh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-04-2018 Jahir Alam Versus Ram Lakhan Prasad Vishwakarma & Others High Court of Jharkhand
22-12-2017 Sofia Hasan, USA, rep. by her GPA Zulfaquar Alam Versus Shaik Mansoor Ali In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
21-09-2017 Mohd. Mahboob Ali @ Sheru @ Sheikh Alam Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-08-2017 In Re : Md. Aftab Alam High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-08-2017 Fakhre Alam & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-07-2017 Amir Alam Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-07-2017 Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui Versus M/s. K.T. Kubal & Co. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-06-2017 Mohd. Maqsood Alam & Others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
04-05-2017 Elegant Carpet Alam Exports and Others V/S Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Allahabad
25-04-2017 Rajib Saha Versus Monjur Alam Mallick High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-04-2017 Jahir Alam @ Jahid @ Jabed Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-04-2017 TCP Marketing & Research Private Limited Versus Khurshid Alam High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-04-2017 Roshan Aara Versus Jahir Alam High Court of Jharkhand
09-03-2017 Shahne Alam Versus M/s. I.K. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
08-02-2017 Md. Feroz Alam Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-01-2017 Mohd. Khursheed Alam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-01-2017 Dr.MD. Dilwar Alam Khan Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-12-2016 Syed Naqui Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-12-2016 Khaleek Versus Naaz Alam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-09-2016 Md. Anwar Alam Khan & Another Versus Zaibun Nisa & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-08-2016 Sayed Moinuddin Versus Md. Mehaboob Alam & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
17-08-2016 Mansoor @ Mansoor Alam @ Mansoor Ali & Another Versus The State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-07-2016 Shah Alam Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-07-2016 Alam Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-06-2016 Khorshed Alam Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited. & Another High Court of Tripura
18-05-2016 Md. Sawood Alam Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-04-2016 The State Govt of Nct of Delhi & Another Versus Tanjeer Alam @ Raja & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2016 Md. Shamsur Alam Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-01-2016 Athar Alam Ansari Versus Walayet Ali Roomi Ansari & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2016 Md. Shamsur Alam Versus Reliance General Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-12-2015 Masarat Alam Bhat Versus State & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-10-2015 Mohd. Amir Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-10-2015 Nayab Alam Versus Tanveer Sultana High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-10-2015 Dr. Samiran Banerjee & Another Versus Syed Meraj Alam Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ranchi
16-09-2015 Ram Alam & Others Versus D.D.C., Varanasi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-09-2015 Musheer Alam Versus Ramesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-08-2015 Tabrez Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-08-2015 Kamre Alam Versus Md. Nasir Ahmed Khan West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-07-2015 Fakhre Alam & Others Versus Amity Business School, Noida & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2015 Md. Anwar Alam Khan Versus Zaibun Nisa & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-06-2015 Jahangir Alam Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-05-2015 Mijanur Alam Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-04-2015 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited. Versus Zafeer Alam & Another Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ranchi
28-04-2015 Md. Naseem Alam Versus The State of Bihar through the District Collector & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-04-2015 Shah Alam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-04-2015 Dr. Ambica Prasad Versus Md. Alam & Another Supreme Court of India
12-03-2015 Sk. Samsher Alam Versus Sri Prasanta Gyan & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-02-2015 Pongathsi Sangtam Versus J. Alam, IAS & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-01-2015 Abdul Raqeeb Alam Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-12-2014 Sk. Rabiul Alam Versus Dinesh Kumar Goyal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-11-2014 Aaftab Alam Versus Union of India & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-11-2014 Niyamatullah & Others Versus Badre Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-10-2014 M/s. K.T. Kubal & Company Versus Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-09-2014 Mashkoor Alam Versus Amir Bano High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-09-2014 Md Anwar Alam Khan & Another Versus Zaibun Nisa & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-09-2014 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through General Manager & Another Versus Alam Ali National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC