Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010110902025 2025:GAU-AS:8280 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2810/2025 SHRI MRIDUL KUMAR LASKAR S/O- LATE KALI PRASAD LASKAR, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- KAMPUR, P.S. - KAMPUR, DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 (ASSAM). 3:DIRECTOR CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 (ASSAM). 4:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS. NDC, NAGAON Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B HAZARIKA, MR. T J MAHANTA,MR D MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-06-2025 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Hazarika and Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Page No.# 2/6 H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to the prolonged continuation of the suspension of the petitioner effected vide order dated 19.12.2024. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, extending the period of suspension of the petitioner for further period of three months, on review thereof. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The petitioner, while working as Headmaster in the Dakshin Kamrup High School, came to be placed under suspension vide order dated 09.12.2024, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. In pursuance to the issuance of the said order of suspension, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause notice dated 13.03.2025. Vide the said Show Cause notice, the petitioner was required to submit his written statement in the matter within seven days from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioner submitted his written statement against the Show Cause notice on 28.03.2025. However, on 17.03.2025, a review of the suspension of the petitioner was carried out by the respondent authorities and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, being satisfied that the period of the suspension of the petitioner was required to be extended, proceeded to extend the suspension of the petitioner for further three months. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that although the Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date he was placed under suspension, no reasoned order issued by the competent authority towards extending the period of suspension accompanied the Show Cause notice issued to the petitioner. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Page No.# 3/6 Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, mandates that in the event of furnishing the Memorandum of Charge/Show Cause to the suspended delinquent within 3 (three) months from the date he was placed under suspension, the delinquent must also be served with a reasoned order passed for extension of the suspension. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that in the present case the respondents issued the order extending the period of suspension on review of the same only on 17.03.2025. Accordingly, he submits that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) further continuation of the suspension of the petitioner would not be permissible. 5. Per contra, Ms. H. Terangpi, learned counsel for the respondents has, by relying upon the original records placed on record, submitted that the procedures, as mandated in the matter, were complied with after the petitioner was placed under suspension. She submits that the petitioner was issued with a Show Cause notice within three months from the date of his placement under suspension and the process of review of the suspension of the petitioner was also carried out before completion of three months from the date the petitioner was placed under suspension. Accordingly, she submits that the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner in the Show Cause notice would not warrant his reinstatement in the school in question inasmuch as the same would have the effect of disturbing the stable academic environment of the school. She has submitted that as a departmental enquiry has already been directed to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner be kept under suspension till completion of such departmental proceeding. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 7. The petitioner herein was placed under suspension vide an order dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Thereafter, on Page No.# 4/6 13.03.2025, the petitioner was issued a Show Cause notice, wherein 5 (five) charges came to be levelled against him. The petitioner on 28.03.2025 submitted his written statement to the Show Cause notice dated 13.03.2025. However, prior to the petitioner’s submission of reply to the said Show Cause Notice, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, on a review of the suspension of the petitioner and on drawing satisfaction that the same was required to be so extended to prevent any possibility of the petitioner influencing the listed witnesses and/or committing manipulation of documentary evidence maintained in the school, proceeded to issue the order dated 17.03.2025 extending the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of three months. 8. It is stated at the Bar that further review of the petitioner’s suspension was carried out vide order dated 16.06.2025, by which the period of suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three months. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the Show Cause notice having been issued within a period of three months from the date the petitioner was placed under suspension, a reasoned order for extension of the period of suspension not having accompanied it, the order of suspension would lapse, is now being examined. 10. Admittedly, in the case on hand the reasoned order extending the period of suspension, had not accompanied the Show Cause notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, after being placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.2024, was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2025, i.e. within a period of three months from the date of his such suspension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly, in paragraph No. 21 thereof, had laid down that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(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, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the Page No.# 5/6 suspension. The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this connection in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) being relevant to the issue so arising the present proceeding, is extracted below: “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/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.” 11. At this stage, it is to be noticed from the records produced by Ms. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, that till 13.03.2025 no proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities for the purpose of carrying out review of the order of suspension of the petitioner. The order of suspension of the petitioner was processed to be reviewed only on 17.03.2025 and the order thereon was issued thereafter on the approval being granted to such extension by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Accordingly, without any doubt, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the review of the suspension of the petitioner was not carried out in the manner laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra). 12. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusion reached, this Court is of the considered view that the order of suspension dated 19.02.2024 is not in currency after 13.03.2025 and, accordingly, the petitioner is required to be reinstated in his service forthwith. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be reinstated in his service forthwith. 13. However, noticing the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that his continuation in service in the post from where he was placed under suspension, before completion of the departmental proceeding, may be detrimental to the process of enquiry, this Court, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra); directs that the Page No.# 6/6 respondents 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 obstructing the enquiry presently underway with regard to the allegations levelled against him in the Show Cause notice dated 13.03.2025. The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to pass such order with regard to the duties to be performed by the petitioner. 14. In this connection, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) in paragraph 21 being relevant, are again 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 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.” 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The records as produced by Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education, be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant