Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010261832023 2025:GAU-AS:1164 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6738/2023 DR. HEMANTA SARMAH S/O- LATE DIBAKAR SARMAH, R/O- RUPNAGAR, NEAR NORTH LAKHIMPUR COLLEGE, KHELMATI, P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, PIN-787001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT. DISPUR , GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE PRINCIPAL NORTH LAKHIMPUR COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) P.O-KHELMATI P.S-NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787031. 4:THE GOVERNING BODY OF NORTH LAKHIMPUR COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O-KHELMATI P.S-NORTH LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/3 DIST- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787031 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR. S ALI,MR B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. S K SINGHA (r-3, 4),MS. M GOGOI (r-3, 4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 05.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.C.Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Das, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department. Also heard Mr. G.Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 24.07.2023 in pursuant to an order dated 02.08.2023, issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. 3. The petitioner’s case is that though a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, there has been no review of the petitioner’s suspension order till today. As such, the suspension order would have to be set aside and the petitioner be re-instated into service in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs- Union of India & anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. 4. Mr. S.Das, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department has submitted a letter dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Joint Director of Higher Education Department, Assam which is addressed to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Gauhati High Court, which is to the effect that an order for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner had been made on 12.06.2024 and that the same would be concluded within a short period of time. Mr. S.Das submits that as per the verbal instructions received by him, no review of the suspension order has been made by the State respondents till today. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. As can be seen from the submissions made by the counsel for the parties Page No.# 3/3 and the averments made in the pleadings, the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 02.08.2023 w.e.f. 24.07.2023, pending drawal of departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner on 12.06.2024 and since then, more than eight months have elapsed. However, there has been no review of the petitioner’s suspension order till today. 7. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the validity of suspension order cannot be extended beyond three months unless the memorandum of charge/chargesheet is served on the delinquent officer. In the event, memorandum of charge/ charge sheet is served, the State respondents are required to undertake a review for extension of the suspension order. In the present case, the State respondents have clearly not followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court, inasmuch as, there should have been a review as to whether the suspension of the petitioner should continue. As the same has not been done till date, this Court is of the view that continued suspension of the petitioner, in pursuant of the order dated 02.08.2023 is not sustainable. The continued suspension of the petitioner is accordingly set aside. The petitioner should accordingly be reinstated into service, with liberty being given to the State respondents to post the officer to any of its offices or branches, where the petitioner will not be able to have any influence over the departmental proceedings that is pending before the Inquiry Officer. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant