Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040020682025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/592/2025 Biri Son Son of Late Biri Kaha, resident of Leki Village, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner/ Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Education Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh, Tsering Nyima,Nabam Kakum Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Education),Taba Tagum BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, being respondent No. 2, and Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Page No.# 2/4 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order, No. SEDN-12011/1/2024, dated 30.01.2025; the Order No. SEDN-12011/1/2024/299, dated 23.04.2025; and also the Order No. SEDN-12011/1/2024/839, dated 18.11.2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 30.01.2025; the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has placed the petitioner under suspension and vide impugned order, dated 23.04.2025; the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh has extended the suspension period of the petitioner for a further period of 180 days, w.e.f. from 01.05.2025, pursuant to the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee; and vide order, dated 18.11.2025; the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has extended the suspension period of the petitioner for a further period of 180 days, w.e.f. 28.10.2025. 4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Director of School Education, in Anjaw District, and he was served with a show cause notice, on 30.05.2024; alleging irregularities in appointments. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 12.08.2024, denying the daid allegation. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension, vide impugned order, dated 30.01.2025, and his headquarter is fixed at Itanagar during the period of suspension. Accordingly, the petitioner had reported on 17.02.2025, and since then, he has been cooperating with the disciplinary authority. 4.1 Mr. Singh, taking this Court to the order, passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, dated 23.04.2025, which is annexed with the petition as ‘Annexure-5’ at page No. 33; submits that vide said order, the suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 180 days, w.e.f. 01.05.2025. However, said 180 days had already been expired on Page No.# 3/4 27.10.2025, and since, the respondent authorities have failed to review the suspension order and to extend the same within a period of 180 days, and passed the impugned order, only on 18.11.2025 (Annexure-6’ at page No. 36), after a lapse of 22 days; the same is arbitrary and illegal and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India (2015) 7 SCC, page No. 291 and also, in view of the provision of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; and in that view of the matter, Mr. Singh submits that the suspension order, dated 30.01.2025, and the extension orders, dated 23.04.2025 and 18.11.2025, are required to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities, submits that due to administrative oversight, there was a delay of 22 days in reviewing and in extension of the suspension order of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also, perused the impugned suspension order, dated 20.01.2025; the first review order, dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure-5); and the second review order, dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure-6); and has carefully gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), and also gone through Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 7. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), it is well settled that the first suspension order has to be reviewed within a period of 90 days and thereafter, it has to be reviewed within a period of 180 days; and Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 also provides for the same. 8. In that instant case, it appears that while the suspension order was passed on 30.01.2025, the first review was held on 23.04.2025, and the suspension period Page No.# 4/4 was extended for a period of 180 days. Thereafter, the second review was done on 18.11.2025; whereas, the period of 180 days had already expired on 27.10.2025; meaning thereby, that the second review was done after a lapse of 22 days. That being so, suspension lapses automatically under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and subsequent action cannot revive it, as the order becomes invalid from the lapse date. 9. In that view of the matter, the subsequent extension order, dated 18.11.2025; to the considered opinion of this Court, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and as such, the same stands set aside and quashed and consequently, the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 30.01.2025; also stands set aside and quashed, as the same lapsed automatically under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 10. Consequent upon setting aside of the extension order, dated 18.11.2025, and the suspension order, dated 30.01.2025; the respondent authorities shall have to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all the consequential service benefits, which he is legally entitled to. He may be posted in a different station, if so advised. 10.1 However, it is being clarified here that the departmental proceeding initiated against the present petitioner shall continue and the respondent authorities shall take the same to a logical conclusion, as soon as practicable. 11. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant