Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010017042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/494/2025 MATIBUR RAHMAN SON OF MD. ABDUL MALEK, VILLAGE- GERUAMUKH, P.S.- KHATOWAL, PO- GERUATI BAZAR, DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM), PIN- 783140. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781036. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON PO AND PS- NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN-782001. 4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES NAGAON PO AND PS- NAGAON Page No.# 2/3 DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 782001. 5:THE IN-CHARGE BHTIAKHALI MPHC C/O- THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES NAGAON PO AND PS- NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 782001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS R BEGUM,MRS. S Y AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard Shri M. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to prolong suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Gr-IV in the Bhatiakhali MPCH of Nagaon district he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.10.2024 contemplating a departmental proceeding. However, even after expiry of 90 days, neither the proceeding has been initiated by serving any memorandum of charge nor the order of suspension has been reviewed and extended in accordance with law. On the last occasion i.e. 05.02.2025, this Court had granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to whether any review to continue the suspension was taken within the aforesaid period of 90 days. Page No.# 3/3 For ready reference the aforesaid order is extracted herein below: “Heard Mr. MK Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was suspended by an order dated 24.10.2024 pending drawal of departmental proceeding, however, he is still under suspension without adhering to any review within a period of 90 days in terms of mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. The Union of India and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. Ms. S Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Health Department seeks some time to complete her instruction weather any review to continue the suspension was taken within a period of 90 days. List this matter once again on 21.02.2025.” Ms. Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that as per the telephonic instructions, no review has been conducted within the stipulated period of 90 days to continue the suspension order. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments including the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs the Union of India and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 is very clear in this regard. As per the said mandate, review of an order of suspension within 90 days from the date of such suspension is mandatory if in the mean time, the disciplinary proceeding has not been initiated by issuance of a charge memo. The aforesaid mandate not being followed, this Court has no other option but to interfere with the order of suspension dated 24.10.2024. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 accordingly stands set aside and the petitioner is directed to be re-instated in service. It is however made clear that the authorities would have liberty to post the petitioner in any non sensitive posts. It is further made clear that the present interference is on technical grounds and will not have any impact or effect on the contemplated disciplinary proceeding. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant