Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010124732025 2025:GAU-AS:8389 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3263/2025 ASHISH MAZUMDER S/O SRI RATAN KUMAR MAZUMDER, R/O SAMRIDDHI BHAWAN, EVERGREEN ROAD, P.O.- WEST SRIPURIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM-786145 VERSUS ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 4 ORS (A JOINT UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 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 H.O. ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK H.O. ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 4:THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION AND AUDIT Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF MANAGER HEAD OF DEPARTMENT (VIGILANCE) ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK H.O. ADAM PLAZA SRIMANTA SANKARDEV PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., 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 : 23/06/2025 Heard Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (AGVB), appearing for the respondents. The writ petitioner herein, while serving as Office Assistant in the AGVB, Borguri Branch of Tinsukia District, was placed under suspension by order dated 29/05/2024 and thereafter, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding on the charge of gross misconduct. Another employee of the Bank, viz. Shri Arup Saikia, who was serving as the Branch Head of the said Branch at the relevant point of time is also facing departmental proceeding along with the writ petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his suspension has been continued beyond the period of 90 days, without proper review and, therefore, the order of suspension is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be Page No.# 3/4 reinstated. By referring to the order dated 28/05/2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2666/2025 wherein, this Court had issued a direction to reinstate the petitioner therein i.e. Shri Arup Saikia, Mr. Agarwal submits that the case of his client is squarely covered by the said judgement and order of this Court. Therefore, a similar order be passed in the present case as well. According to Mr. Agarwal, since the writ petitioner and Shri Arup Saikia are facing a common departmental proceeding on the same charges, a differential treatment to his client is not called for in the facts of the case. Responding to the above, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, AGVB has referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that there is no policy of the Bank to issue any communication to the delinquent Officer pertaining to extension of the order of suspension. Mr. Ganguly has, however, fairly submitted that pursuant to the order dated 28/05/2025, Shri Arup Saikia has already been reinstated. Mr. Ganguly has further confirmed that the writ petitioner and Shri Arup Saikia have been subjected to a common departmental proceeding a similar nature of charges and, therefore, he is not in a position to deny that the order dated 28/05/2025 passed by this Court would have a relevant bearing on the prayer made in the present writ petition. In the order dated 28/05/2025 passed in Arup Saikia Vs. AGVB and others this Court had issued the following directions:- “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 Page No.# 4/4 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 authorities 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.” Since there is no controversy at the Bar that the writ petitioner is also similarly situated as Shri Arup Saikia with the only difference that the date of the order of suspension issued to Shri Arup Saikia was on 23/05/2024 and at that time he was serving as the Branch Head of Borguri Branch, Tinsukia, all other facts are common in both the cases. That apart, the order of suspension dated 29/05/2024 placing the writ petitioner under suspension was also not reviewed within the period of 90 days as prescribed by law and as such, the said order has lapsed by operation of law. In view of the above, this writ petition is being disposed of, in the light of the order dated 28/05/2025, with a direction that the petitioner herein shall also be forthwith reinstated in service. The liberty given to the bank in case of Shri Arup Saikia (Supra), as noted in the order dated 28/05/2025, shall apply in case of the writ petitioner as well. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant