Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010279202024 2025:GAU-AS:9245 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/502/2025 RAJIB SAIKIA S/O- LATE DALAL SAIKIA, R/O- VILLAGE NO. 1 TENGAPATHAR, P.O.- RAIDANGIA, P.S. NARAYANPURI, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 784164 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS THROUGH- THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI- 781032 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR (R.K.G. BRANCH) DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN CODE- 787001 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BIHPURIA REVENUE CIRCLE BIHPURIA DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN CODE- 78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR. R BARTHAKUR,MR. J PATOWARY,MR. R MAJUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, GA, ASSAM :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 17.07.2025 Page No.# 2/10 Judgment & order(ORAL) Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department; and Ms. M. Bhattacharyya, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 30.01.2024, passed by the District Commissioner, Lakhimpur, placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 08.01.2024, in pursuance of his arrest by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti- Corruption, Government of Assam, on 08.01.2024, in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 08/2024, under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended), on the ground of prolonged suspension. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The petitioner, herein, while working as Lat Mandal under Bihpuria Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur, came to be placed under detention on 08-01-2024 in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 08/2024 under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(as amended). The petitioner, thereafter, moved before this Court by way of instituting a bail application being BA No. 218/2024, seeking regular bail. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 23- 01-2024, on examination of the materials coming on record, was pleased to Page No.# 3/10 dispose of the said bail application, granting regular bail to the petitioner in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 08/2024. It is also projected that the petitioner upon being enlarged on regular bail, had informed the said fact to the respondents No. 2 & 4, respectively. The District Commissioner, Lakhimpur, vide order, dated 30-01-2024, on being appraised about the petitioner being placed under detention for more than 48 hours in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 08/2024, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, w.e.f. 08-01-2024, i.e. with effect from the date of his arrest. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner, thereafter, served a Show Cause Notice upon the petitioner on 04-05- 2024. The petitioner submitted his reply in pursuance thereof. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry in the matter. The departmental enquiry was concluded on 27-06-2024. The enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner vide communication, dated 07-12-2024 and the petitioner submitted his representation thereof. However, the matter was not taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner being aggrieved by the prolonged suspension effected in his case, had instituted the present proceeding, assailing the order of suspension so issued in his case on 30-01-2024, on the ground of prolonged suspension occasioning in pursuance thereof. Page No.# 4/10 4. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, after being released on regular bail on 23-01-2024, had duly informed the said aspect of the matter to the respondent authorities. However, inspite of the said position, the respondent authorities had issued the order, dated 30-01-2024, placing him under suspension with effect from 08-01-2024. The learned counsel has further submitted that upon being placed under suspension, no charge-sheet was so issued within a period of 90 days thereof. 5. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel, has submitted that the charge-sheet was so issued to the petitioner only on 04-05-2024 i.e. beyond the period of 90 days as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The learned counsel has further submitted that on issuance of the Show Cause Notice, dated 04-05-2024, no order(s) towards extending the order of suspension came to accompany the said Show Cause Notice and/or came to be served upon the petitioner proximate to the time of issuance of the said Show Cause Notice. 6. In the above premises, Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of suspension, dated 30-01-2024, would not mandate to be further continued and accordingly, the same is to be interfered with further direction for the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service subject to outcome of the departmental proceeding already initiated against him. 7. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, has submitted that the departmental proceeding Page No.# 5/10 instituted against the petitioner is on the verge of closure and the enquiry report in the matter, was submitted by the enquiry officer on 07-12-2024. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that a copy, thereof, was also communicated to the petitioner on 18-04-2025 and his reply, thereto, has also been received. The learned standing counsel has also submitted that the matter is presently under consideration of the disciplinary authority for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner and accordingly, he has submitted that this Court would be pleased to permit the departmental authorities to take the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner to its logical conclusion and would be pleased not to interfere with the order of suspension in view of the facts existing in the present proceedings. 8. To buttress his case, Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat & ors., reported in AIR 2022 SC 1618; and a decision of this Court in the case of Pradip Kalita v. State of Assam & ors.[WP(c)5966/2024; date of judgment & order: 09.04.2025]. 9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. At the outset, it is to be noted that the suspension of the petitioner, herein, vide the order, dated 30-01-2024, was so issued invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and the same was made effective with effect from 08-01-2024 i.e. the date when the petitioner was placed under detention in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 08/2024. Page No.# 6/10 11. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has assailed the order of suspension on the ground of the same being prolonged and steps not being taken in the matter in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly, in paragraph No. 21, had laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(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 extension of the suspension. 13. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), is of 2(two) parts: one, contemplating a situation wherein a departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the delinquent officer/employee within a period of 3(three) months with effect from the date, such employee was placed under suspension. In such a circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the currency of a suspension order shall not extend beyond 3(three) months, if within this period; the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. 14. As contended by the petitioner, he had intimated the respondents of his release from detention on 29.01.2024, and 30.01.2024, respectively, however, the order of suspension was issued on 30.01.2024. The Show Cause Notice, in question, having been so issued only on 04-05-2024, the same cannot be construed to have been so issued within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner came to be placed under suspension. Accordingly, in Page No.# 7/10 terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), the order of suspension would have to be construed to have lost its force upon completion of 3(three) months with effect from 30-01- 2024. 15. The second part of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), mandates that in the event, a charge-sheet/memorandum of charge is served; a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. However, in the case on hand, no order extending the period of suspension came to be served upon the petitioner along with the Show Cause Notice, served upon him. It also appears that no such order was also served upon the petitioner proximate to the date of service upon him of the Show Cause Notice. 16. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), more particularly, the directions contained therein in paragraph No. 21, the same was implemented in the State vide issuance of an Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel(B) Department, wherein, it was mandated that as follows: “It is therefore directed that all the Senior Most Secretaries of all the Departments shall ensure that the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of three months of period from the date of issuance of order of suspension. They shall also ensure that the currency of the suspension order should not extend 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 within 3(three) months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, whenever necessary.” 17. The respondent State having already issued the said Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, a right accrues to the petitioner, herein, for Page No.# 8/10 seeking a direction for his reinstatement in his service on account of the fact that on the date of issuance of the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet and/or on the date of it being served upon him; a reasoned order as mandated to be so issued in terms of the provisions of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of its decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra) as well as Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020, was not so done, rendering the continuation of the suspension, to be null and void. 18. 18. Having noticed the said decision pertaining to the issue of prolonged suspension and the law declared in the matter in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra) and implemented by the State respondents vide the issuance of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.02.2020; this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities cannot act in violation of the law as laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra) and it being a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it would be binding on all concerned in the country. 19. In view of the above position and admittedly, the order of suspension of the petitioner not having been reviewed in terms of directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra); this Court is of the considered view that the same has lost its force and accordingly the same cannot be said to be in currency any further. The petitioner, accordingly, would be required to be reinstated in his services. 20. Having drawn the above conclusions; this Court would consider the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, in the matter. Page No.# 9/10 21. On a perusal of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Gajanan Gharat & ors.(supra) and Pradip Kalita(supra); this Court is of the considered view that the said decisions have been so rendered in the light of the facts emanating therein and the same would not advance the case of the respondents herein. Accordingly, a detailed discussion, thereof, is not being made in the present order. 22. This Court notices that the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein, is on the verge of its completion and an order, thereon, is only required to be passed by the disciplinary authority. However, what is disturbing is the fact that the enquiry report in the matter was so submitted by the enquiry officer on 07-12-2024 and a representation against the same was also submitted by the petitioner. However, thereafter, for a long period of time, the disciplinary authority has not taken a decision, thereon. 23. In view of the above discussions; this Court hereby holds that the order of suspension, dated 30-01-2024, issued in respect of the petitioner, herein, has lost its currency and accordingly, directs the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. However, noticing the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that his continuation may not be called for against a post of sensitive nature; this Court by relying on the further directions as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of the Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra); directs that the respondent authorities would be free to transfer the petitioner to any other post existing in the Department so as to prevent the petitioner from misusing and/or obstructing the investigation pending against Page No.# 10/10 him. The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to pass such direction(s) with regard to the duties required to be so performed by the petitioner in the matter. 25. In this connection, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra) in paragraph No. 21, is extracted hereinbelow, for ready reference: “21. ………………………………………………………. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 26. It is also provided that the reinstatement of the petitioner, herein, would not preclude the disciplinary authority from finalising and concluding the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in accordance with law. The manner in which the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner, herein, is to be so reckoned, would be so done by the disciplinary authority while passing order(s) in the matter concluding the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. 27. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant