Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010135172025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3616/2025 DIGANTA GOGOI SON OF BALIN GOGOI, R/O VILL- 2 NO. BHARALICHUK, P.O. AND P.S.- DHEMAJI, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787057 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHEMAJI P.O. AND P.S.- DHEMAJI DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM, PIN-78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : M K BORAH, MS. P. KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 05.09 .2025 Heard Mr. M.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.N. Page No.# 2/5 Sharma, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for reinstating him in service with all consequential benefits and also challenging the suspension order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and subsequent extensions thereof. 3. The undisputed facts, leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the establishment of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji. He was arrested on 10.07.2024 on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Harmohan Saikia, who had alleged that the petitioner had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.7,000/- as bribe, for pension related work of the informant Harmohan Saikia. Upon the said case, ACB P.S. Case No.53/2024, was registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.08.2024, placed the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 10.07.2024. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam, vide order dated 09.08.2024, and he was expecting revocation of the suspension order dated 30.08.2024, and his reinstatement in service. But, the respondent authorities have not reviewed the said suspension order for last 10 months without any further action and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 30.08.2024, and also praying for his reinstatement in service, as the conduct of the respondent authorities is illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 4. The petitioner has also filed one additional affidavit bringing on record the communication/letter dated 18.06.2025, issued by the Joint Director-cum-Inquiry Officer, Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam. 5. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.08.2024, with effect from his date of arrest i.e. on Page No.# 3/5 10.07.2024. But, since then the order has not been reviewed by the respondent authorities by issuing a speaking order and as such, the suspension order dated 30.08.2024, is illegal and arbitrary and as such, Mr. Borah has contended to set aside the same and also to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect, with all consequential benefits. 6. However, Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities pursuant to an order of this Court dated 11.08.2025, had obtained necessary instruction and produced 3 orders dated 03.06.2025, 27.02.2025 and 29.11.2024, by which suspension of the petitioner was reviewed and extended for further period of time and that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner contemplating departmental proceeding against him under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and as such, this petition is devoid of merit and therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to dismiss the same. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and it appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure- 6) with effect from the date of his arrest i.e. on 10.07.2024. But, from the orders produced before this Court indicates that the suspension order dated 30.08.2024, was extended for another 3 months, vide order dated 29.11.2024 and thereafter, vide order dated 27.02.2025 and thereafter, vide order dated 03.06.2025, the same is being extended. It also appears that in the meantime, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.03.2025, contemplating departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 8. It also appears from the impugned order, dated 30.08.2024, that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.07.2024, on which he was arrested by the police of ACB P.S., Assam and the said suspension order would have been reviewed within a period of 90 days. And if we count the period of 90 days from 10.07.2024, the same would expire on 09.10.2024. But, the suspension order was reviewed and extended by the Page No.# 4/5 respondent No.2 only on 29.11.2024. 9. Sub-Rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, deals with extension of suspension order and validity of the same. The said Rules read as under:- “(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.” These Rules are, however, not applicable in case of the petitioner, since the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 has already been put in place and holding the field. Though Rule 6 deals with suspension, yet, the Rule is silent in respect of review of the suspension order within a period of 90 days. 10. But, it is well-settled in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India Through its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 that currency of a suspension order should not be extended 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 the extension of the suspension. 11. Admittedly, the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. But, the same was issued within the stipulated period of 90 days. It was issued only on 13.03.2025, vide Annexure-8. And having not furnishing the charge-sheet/ memorandum of charges within the period of three months and having not been extended the suspension order within Page No.# 5/5 the period of 90 days, with effect from the date from which the suspension order was given effect to, this Court is of the view that the order extending suspension of the petitioner dated 29.11.2024, and all subsequent orders dated 27.02.2025 and 03.06.2025 are illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the respondent authorities shall have to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, to which he is legally entitled to. However, the respondent No.2 will be at liberty to consider his posting/transfer to any other office under his/her jurisdiction, so that influencing of the witnesses, either in criminal case or in the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him, could be avoided. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE