Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010244232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6386/2025 SMTI. SIKHA DEVI W/O- SRI GITEN HAZARIKA, VILLAGE - DEKASANDAR, P.O. - JAMUGURIHAT, P.S.- JAMUGURI, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM.PIN-789180 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI - 781019. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM SONITPUR TEZPUR DIST. -SONITPUR ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS TEZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM. 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NADUAR EDUCATION BLOCK DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. U NANDA,MS. J GHOSH,MR J ABEDIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 02.12.2025 Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order, dated 08.07.2025, issued by the Director of Elementary Education (DEE hereinafter). 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are stated as under:- “The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher, in a L.P. School, in the year 1990 and thereafter, in the year 2001, she was transferred and posted at Jamuguri Model L.P. School and in the said school, vide order dated 23.05.2017, she was allowed to hold the charge of Headmistress and she took over the charge on 30.06.2017. Thereafter, on 22.07.2024, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Chengelimora L.P. School, under the scheme of rationalization and on 31.07.2024, she had submitted a representation before the Block Elementary Education Officer, Naduar (BEEO hereinafter) and prayed for cancellation of her transfer order, but the same failed to yield any result and being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 4786/2024 and in the said writ petition, vide order dated Page No.# 3/10 18.09.2024, this Court had granted status-quo in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner remained in her original school, i.e. Jamuguri Model L.P. School and the said writ petition is pending for final adjudication. Thereafter, on 05.06.2025, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Tezpur (D.I. hereinafter), alleging that she was regularly irregular in her duties and failed to maintain regularity and punctuality in the school activities and she was unauthorizedly absent on 31.05.2025 and for which, she was directed to submit her reply. Accordingly, she had submitted her reply on 09.06.2025, denying all the allegations made against her. Thereafter, D.I. of Schools had prepared one report and forwarded the same to the DEE, vide Letter No. DIS/TEZ/ESSTT/1/2023-24/804, dated 13.06.2025, along with a preliminary inquiry report prepared by the BEEO, which were prepared behind the back of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2025, issued by the DEE and then, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal, under Rule 14 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, before the respondent No. 1, on 25.07.2025, for recalling the impugned suspension order and reinstating her with all service benefits. But, no action has been initiated till date. Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that she is suffering and going to retire from service on 30.11.2026.” 4. Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having placed the petitioner under suspension, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2025 Page No.# 4/10 (Annexure – 10), the respondent authorities neither reviewed the same nor reinstated the petitioner in her service and also, no charge-sheet has been submitted to her till date. 4.1. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India, through its Secretary and Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, Mr. Abedin submits that the suspension order having not been reviewed and having not furnished the charge-sheet to the petitioner within the statutory period, i.e. 3 months, the suspension order dated 08.07.2025, is liable to be interfered with and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and to reinstate the petitioner to her original post with all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, pursuant to order of this Court, dated 01.12.2025, has produced the original file before this Court, in respect of review of the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 08.07.2025 and submits that the suspension order was reviewed on 04.10.2025 and suspension was extended for another 3 months. 5.1. Mr. Phukan also submits that in the meantime, the charge-sheet has been prepared and furnished to the petitioner on 18.11.2025, with the statements of allegations and as such, there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 6. In reply, Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 08.07.2025 and the same was reviewed on 04.10.2025, yet the charge-sheet was furnished to her on 18.11.2025. Page No.# 5/10 6.1. Further, referring to one Office Memorandum (OM hereinafter), bearing No. ABP.13/2018/Pt/35, dated 04.02.2020, especially second paragraph of the same, Mr. Abedin submits that the said OM was issued on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) and in the said OM, all the senior most Secretary of all the Departments are directed to ensure that the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of 3 months of period from the date of issuance of order of suspension and also to ensure that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond 3 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 months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, wherever necessary. 6.2. Mr. Abedin further submits that in the instant case, though the suspension order was reviewed on 04.10.2025, the charge-sheet was furnished to the petitioner only on 18.11.2025 and having filed the charge-sheet to the petitioner after expiry of 3 months, the respondent authorities ought to have extend the suspension order in view of the OM dated 04.02.2020. Therefore, Mr. Abedin has contended to set aside the impugned suspension order as well as the review order, as the same is not in terms of the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) and also in view of the OM dated 04.02.2020. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the OM dated 04.02.2020, which was issued after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Page No.# 6/10 (Supra) and also as per direction of this Court, dated 30.11.2017, in a series of writ petitions, the lead case being W.P.(C) No. 6465/2017. 8. The basic facts herein this case is not in dispute. While the petitioner was serving as Headmistress of Jamuguri Model L.P. School, she was placed under suspension, vide impugned suspension order dated 08.07.2025. The said suspension order was reviewed by the DEE on 04.10.2025 and thereafter, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2025. 9. Thus, admittedly, the charge-sheet, dated 18.11.2025, was not issued to the petitioner within the statutory period, i.e. 3 months, as contemplated in the OM dated 04.02.2020 and also as per requirement of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra). 10. For better understanding of the dispute, the OM dated 04.02.2020, is reproduced herein below:- GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMEN OF PERSONNEL::: PERSONNEL (B) DISPUR :::: GUWAHATI No.ΑΒΡ.13/2018/Pt/35 Dated Dispur, the 4th February, 2020. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Hon'ble High Court Guwahati in its order dated 30-11-2017, in a series of writ petitions, the lead case being W.P.(C) No.6465/2017 has directed to issue a notification indicating the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary-vs.- Union of India case to the effect that the Disciplinary Authorities are to strictly comply with the requirement to issue the Memorandum of Charges/Charge Sheet before the expiry of three months from the date of issuance Page No.# 7/10 of Order of suspension. 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, wherever necessary. The officer proposing for suspension shall also ensure that the charges are framed and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority within two weeks from the date of passing order of suspension. After issuance of Memorandum of Charges/Charge - Sheet, the Senior Most Secretaries shall undertake a review within 6 months as regards the desirability to further continue with the suspension Order. Senior Most Secretaries will be held responsible if cases of suspension in their respective Departments are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. However, for those certain categories of employees for whom Disciplinary Authorities are not the Governor or the Chief Secretary, the concerned Appointing Authority as listed at Schedule in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 will be held responsible if cases of suspension under their subordinate offices are not dealt with and Page No.# 8/10 reviewed accordingly. All the departments shall submit quarterly return to the Personnel (B) Department with details about the suspension Order issued, Memorandum of Charges / Charge Sheet served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if any extension of suspension period is given etc. The Personnel Department will compile the reports received from all the departments and place before the undersigned for a periodical review every 3 months of the last 3 months suspension orders for further necessary action. Sd/-(Kumar Sanjay Krishna, IAS) Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam 11. Indisputably, this OM was issued on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra), wherein in paragraph No.21 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a 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, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. 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 Page No.# 9/10 recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise 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. 12. Thus, in view of issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner by the respondent authorities on 18.11.2025, which is, admittedly, beyond the period of 90 days, the review and extension of the suspension order, vide order dated 04.10.2025, appears to be illegal and also arbitrary, for being issued in violation of the requirement and direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) and the OM dated 04.02.2020. 13. As such, the impugned suspension order dated 08.07.2025 and also the review dated 04.10.2025, fail to withstand the legal scrutiny. Accordingly, both the orders are interfered with. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in her service forthwith, with all consequential service benefits. 14. However, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to take the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner to its logical conclusion, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, as the petitioner is going to retire on 30.11.2026. Page No.# 10/10 15. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. 16. The original record be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant