Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010101342025 2025:GAU-AS:6806 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2666/2025 ARUP SAIKIA S/O SRI AMULYA SAIKIA, R/O GARMUR DULIAPAM GAON, DULIA GAON, P.O.- JORHAT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM-785007 VERSUS THE ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 4 ORS. (A JOINT UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK), HEAD OFFICE - ADAM PLAZA, SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE - ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE - ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 4:THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION AND AUDIT ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK ADAM PLAZA Page No.# 2/4 SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF MANAGER HEAD OF DEPARTMENT (VIGILANCE) ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE - ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS S JAIN,MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL,MRS J M KONWAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A G V B, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 28/05/2025 Heard Ms. J.M. Konwar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank. The petitioner herein is an employee of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (AGVB). While serving as Branch Head of Borguri Branch, Tinsukia, by order dated 23/05/2024, the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending initiation of departmental proceeding against him pertaining to the charges of irregularities in sanctioning retail loan under the LA208 scheme. Since then, the petitioner has been kept under suspension. The primary grievance of the writ petitioner, expressed in this petition, is that there was no proper review and/or extension of the order of suspension by following the prescription of law as laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Jibesh Kr. Deb Sarma Vs. State of Assam represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 1914. As such, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of suspension and for issuance of a direction for his Page No.# 3/4 reinstatement. Responding to the above, Mr. Ganguly, by referring to the short affidavit filed by the bank, submits that the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner is still going on. Under such circumstances, it is not advisable to reinstate the petitioner by revoking his suspension. Mr. Ganguly has, however, admitted that review and extension of the order of suspension was neither carried out before the expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the same nor was the same communicated to the petitioner. It has been contended by Mr. Ganguly that under the Banking Regulations applicable to the AGVB, there is no requirement for communicating communicate the order of extension of the order of suspension to the petitioner. After hearing the submissions made at the Bar, it is apparent that a departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner is still going on against him. However, the same is being conducted at the HO level at Guwahati whereas, the present place of posting of the petitioner is at Tinsukia. That apart, the order of suspension had admittedly not been reviewed by the Bank authorities before the expiry of 90 days by furnishing sufficient reason. In the case of A.K. Choudhury (Supra), the Supreme Court has made the following observations in paragraph 21, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person 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 dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that 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 Page No.# 4/4 superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” Following the decision rendered in the case of A.K. Choudhury (Supra), this Court had passed similar orders in the case of State of Assam and another Vs. Ajit Sonowal and others reported in 2023 (6) GLT 115 as well as in the case of Jibesh Kr. Deb Sarma (Supra). After the aforementioned decisions, the law is firmly settled that an order of suspension, if not extended by furnishing valid reason before the expiry of 90 days would expire and such order cannot be given a fresh lease of life by ex-post-facto. If that be so, there can be no doubt or dispute about the fact that the order of suspension dated 23/05/2024 issued in respect of the petitioner, had lost its validity by operation of law upon expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the same. As such, this writ petition is being disposed of by providing that the petitioner be forthwith reinstated in service by holding that the order of suspension has lapsed. Accordingly, the petitioner be reinstated in service. It would, however, be open for the Bank sauthorities to transfer the petitioner to any position that is deemed suitable, in the interest of the Bank. Moreover, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceeding and bring the same to its logical conclusion. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant