Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010066272025 2025:GAU-AS:9344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1836/2025 SRI VINAYAM KRISHNA S/O-MADAN MOHAN SARMA R/O- SEWALI PATH, HATIGOAN, HOUSE NO.2, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), PIN-781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M)-6, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PERSONAL DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI. 3:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M). 4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF OF THE STATE INQUIRY OFFICER PERSONAL DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF ASSAM GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/8 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR. T SK Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 22.07.2025 Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 10.09.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, Guwahati, towards placing the petitioner under suspension for his alleged involvement in irregularities/negligence of duties in terms of a report submitted in this connection before the District Commissioner, Cachar, vide his communication dated 16.08.2024, on the ground of prolonged suspension. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed herein below: - The petitioner, in terms of a report submitted by the District Commissioner, Cachar, vide communication dated 16.08.2024, came to be placed under suspension vide issuance Page No.# 3/8 of an order dated 07.09.2024. In pursuance to the issuance of the said order of suspension, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner issued a show-cause notice dated 23.09.2024, initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner herein. The petitioner, on receipt of the said show-cause notice, submitted his written statement against the same on 07.10.2024. The disciplinary proceeding instituted against the petitioner is presently pending disposal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the prolonged suspension as effected in his case, has instituted the present proceeding, assailing the order of suspension so issued in his case on 07.09.2024; on the ground of prolonged suspension occasioning in pursuance thereof. 4. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuance of the order of suspension, the disciplinary authority had instituted a departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 23.09.2024. Such show- cause notice although, was issued within the period of 90(ninety) days from the date the petitioner was placed under suspension, no order(s) towards extending the order of suspension came to accompany the said show-cause notice, and/or, came to be served upon the petitioner proximate to the time of issuance of the said show-cause notice. 5. In the above premises, Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of suspension, dated 10.09.2024, would not mandate to be further continued and accordingly, the same is to be interfered with further direction for the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service subject to outcome of the departmental proceeding already initiated against him. 6. Per contra, Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the show-cause notice having been issued to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date, he was placed under suspension, the order of suspension of the petitioner cannot be held to have lost its force. Mr. Goswami, by relying upon the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Assam, has submitted that the said Office Page No.# 4/8 Memorandum mandates that after issuance of the Memorandum of Charge/Charge-sheet, the senior most Secretary of the Department concerned, shall undertake a review within six months as regards the desirability to further continue with the suspension order of the employee concerned. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Goswami that the competent authority had carried out a review with regard to the necessity of continuing the suspension of the petitioner and had issued an order dated 29.03.2025; whereby, the petitioner’s period of suspension was further extended. He submits that the review of the order of suspension of the petitioner having been so done within the period of 6(six) months from the date he was placed under suspension, the extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner would not mandate an interference of this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the suspension order of the petitioner was so issued by invoking the provisions of sub-rule (1) (a) of Rule 6 of Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him. 9. In pursuance to the issuance of the said order dated 10.09.2024, the departmental authority had vide show-cause notice dated 23.09.2024, instituted a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The said departmental proceeding is presently pending disposal. 10. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has assailed the order of suspension on the ground of the same being prolonged and steps not being taken in the matter in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly, in paragraph No. 21, had laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(three) months if within this period, the memorandum Page No.# 5/8 of charges/charge-sheet, is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. If the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served; a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 12. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), is of 2(two) parts: one, contemplating a situation wherein a departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the delinquent officer/employee within a period of 3(three) months with effect from the date, such employee was placed under suspension. In such a circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the currency of a suspension order shall not extend beyond 3(three) months, if within this period; the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. The said direction would have no application in the case of the petitioner, herein, as the Show Cause Notice, in his case, was so served upon him within a period of 90(ninety) days of being placed under suspension. 13. The second part of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), mandates that in the event, a charge- sheet/memorandum of charge is served; a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. However, in the case on hand, no order extending the period of suspension came to be served upon the petitioner along with the Show Cause Notice, served upon him. It also appears that no such order was also served upon the petitioner proximate to the date of service upon him of the Show Cause Notice. 14. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly, the directions contained therein in paragraph No. 21, the same was implemented in the State vide issuance of an Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, wherein, it was mandated that as follows: - “It is therefore directed that all the Senior Most Secretaries of all the Departments shall ensure that the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of three months of period from the date of issuance of Page No.# 6/8 order of suspension. They shall also ensure that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. If the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served within 3(three) months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, whenever necessary.” 15. The respondent State having already issued the said Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, a right accrues to the petitioner, herein, for seeking a direction for his reinstatement in his service on account of the fact that on the date of issuance of the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet and/or on the date of it being served upon him; a reasoned order as mandated to be so issued in terms of the provisions of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of its decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, was not so done, rendering the continuation of the suspension, to be null and void. 16. Having noticed the said decision pertaining to the issue of prolonged suspension and the law declared in the matter in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and implemented by the State respondents vide the issuance of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020; this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities cannot act in violation of the law as laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and it being a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it would be binding on all concerned in the country. 17. The respondent authorities have contended that on review, the period of suspension of the petitioner was being extended. The subsequent reviews carried-out in the matter of the order of suspension, in the considered view of this Court, would be of no consequence, in-as-much as, it is the mandate of law that an order extending the period of suspension is to be so issued on the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the order extending the period of suspension must be served upon the petitioner along with the Show Cause Notice, or, be served upon him proximate to the date on which such Show Cause Notice, was served upon him. Page No.# 7/8 18. In view of the above position and admittedly, the order of suspension of the petitioner not having been reviewed in terms of directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra); this Court is of the considered view that the same has lost its force and accordingly the same cannot be said to be in currency any further. The petitioner, accordingly, would be required to be reinstated in his services. 19. In view of the above discussions; this Court hereby holds that the order of suspension, dated 10-09-2024, issued in respect of the petitioner, herein, has lost its currency and accordingly, directs the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. However, noticing the allegations so leveled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that his continuation may not be called for against a post of sensitive nature; this Court by relying on the further directions as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of the Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra); directs that the respondent authorities would be free to transfer the petitioner to any other post existing in the Department so as to prevent the petitioner from misusing and/or obstructing the investigation pending against him. The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to pass such direction(s) with regard to the duties required to be so performed by the petitioner in the matter. 21. In this connection, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) in paragraph No. 21, is extracted herein below, for ready reference: “21. …As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human Page No.# 8/8 dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 22. It is also provided that the reinstatement of the petitioner, herein, would not preclude the disciplinary authority from finalizing and concluding the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in accordance with law. The manner, in which the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner; herein, is to be so reckoned, would be so done by the disciplinary authority while passing order(s) in the matter concluding the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. 23. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant