Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040017752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/502/2025 Ego Doye Son of Rei Doye, resident of Mob-1, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Commissioner of Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Block 2 Secretariat, Itanagar, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 791111 2:The Commissioner of Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Block 2 Secretariat Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Chief Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Block 2 5th Floor Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Sr. Adv, T K Das,Kirmani Lollen,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Education),Taba Tagum Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 01.06.2026 Heard Shri T.T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, A.P. as well as Ms. P Pangu, learned State Counsel, A.P. 2. Considering the subject matter involved, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The challenge is against an order of suspension and the primary ground of challenge is to lack of timely review which is mandatory in nature. 4. Shri Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Deputy Director of School Education, who was arrested in a criminal case and accordingly, vide an order dated 26.06.2024, issued by the respondent no. 2, Commissioner (Education), Govt. of A.P., he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.01.2024. He has submitted that the first extension was made on 10.07.2024 and the second extension on 19.12.2024. He has submitted that thereafter there is no such extension and yet the petitioner has been kept under suspension. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and has submitted that the period has been prescribed under the aforesaid Rules, more particularly, Rule 10(6) and (7) thereof. He has also submitted that once the period expires, there is no live link and the suspension would automatically become redundant. The learned Senior Counsel has, however, fairly submitted that on 29.12.2024, the memo of charge was served upon the petitioner; however, there is no development in the proceeding and only an Inquiry Officer has been appointed. Page No.# 3/5 5. Shri Tagum, learned Standing Counsel has, however, strenuously opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the charges against the petitioner are grave as he has been implicated in a criminal case pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has submitted that there is no lapse on the part of the respondent authority in making the timely review and extension and therefore, the relief prayed for may not be granted. 6. The law on the subject of suspension is well settled and it has been held that the requirement of timely review is mandatory in nature. Such requirement is not only to ensure that the delinquent would have proper safeguards, the same would also ensure that public interest does not suffer inasmuch, as indefinite suspension would also require payment of subsistence allowance to the delinquent without utilising his/her services. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India,(2015) 7 SCC 291 has laid down as follows: “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 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 Page No.# 4/5 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.” 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. The State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2020) 2 GLR 621has also held that even in case of deemed suspension, the principles laid down would follow, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: - “15. … In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference by holding that the principles laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) would also be applicable in a case of deemed suspension under Section 6(2) of the 1964 Rules.” 8. In the instant case, it is seen that the initial order of suspension was 26.06.2024 which was given effect from 21.01.2024. Admittedly, the first extension was made on 10.07.2024 and the memo of charge was served on 29.12.2024. There is clear violation of the requirement of law regarding review within the prescribed period. 9. This Court is of the view that though the inquiry has been initiated, the order of suspension would be rendered illegal in absence of the timely review as mandated by the Rules of 1965. 10. In the aforesaid conspectus, this Court is of the opinion that a case for Page No.# 5/5 interference is made out. At the same time, this Court also cannot be oblivious of the nature of the charge against the petitioner, though tentative. Accordingly, while interfering with the order of suspension dated 26.06.2024 and directing reinstatement of the petitioner, the respondent authorities are given liberty to post the petitioner in any non-sensitive post. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. 12. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant