Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010232862024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5869/2024 RANI BORAH WIFE OF PARAG BORAH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 5, MALOWALI, NANDANPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE OF ASSAM KRISHI BHAWAN GS ROAD KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER JORHAT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER JORHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA, MS. P P DAS,MS P SARMA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 17.02.2025 Heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. While working as a Senior Assistant-cum-Accountant in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Jorhat the writ petitioner was placed under suspension vide memorandum dated 04.04.2024 by invoking the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 on the ground that the petitioner was arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No.33/2024 and detained in police custody for more than 48 hours. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail on 06.05.2024. According to the writ petitioner, her release on bail was also duly intimated to the respondent authorities on 10.05.2024. 3. By referring to the materials available on record Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of suspension of the writ petitioner was reviewed by the authorities on 29.06.2024 and thereafter, the same was extended with effect from 02.07.2024. However, no further review of the order was conducted after the expiry of 90 days with effect from 02.07.2024. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Dutta, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury vs. Union of India reported in (2015)7 SCC 291 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Page No.# 3/4 the case of State of Assam Vs. Ajit Sonowal and others reported in 2023 SCC Online Gau 731 the order of suspension has lapsed after the expiry of 90 days with effect from 02.07.2024. 4. In terms of the order of this Court, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned departmental counsel has produced the records. He submits on the basis of the records that after 29.06.2024 there has been no review of the order of suspension by the departmental authorities. The reason for not doing so, according to Mr. Choudhruy, was on account of the fact that in the earlier order it was mentioned that the order of suspension is being extended until further order. The learned departmental counsel has, however, admitted in his usual fairness that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court governing the subject, the order of suspension cannot survive beyond 90 days with effect from 02.07.2024 without a proper review by the departmental authoities. Mr. Choudhury has, however, emphatically submitted that even if the order of suspension is deemed to have lapsed by default, it would still be open for the departmental authorities to pass fresh orders placing the petitioner under suspension with proper reasons, if so advised. 5. After taking note of the submissions made at the Bar and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of by observing that the suspension order dated 04.04.2024 issued to the writ peitioner is deemed to have lapsed due to want of review after expiry of 90 days with effect from 02.07.2024. Therefore, the petitioner would no longer be treated to be under suspension beyond 02.10.2024 i.e. the lapse of 90 days with effect from 02.07.2024. Consequently, the authorities would be duty bound to order Page No.# 4/4 her reinstatement. It is, however, made clear that subject to reinstatement of the petitioner, this Court’s order would not come in the way of the authorities to issue a fresh order placing the petitioner under suspension with proper reasons, more particularly if any departmental proceeding has, in the meantime, been initiated against her. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant