Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010020012025 2025:GAU-AS:4851 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/618/2025 GOBINDA TAID SON OF MAKHAN TAID, RESIDENT OF BARBIL, N.C., JUGISUTI NEPALI, LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787058 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, D-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE GOLAGHAT FOREST DIVISION KACHUGAON GOLAGHAT PIN- 78562 Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D S DEKA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned suspension order dated 02.05.2024 on the ground that the 90 days period having expired, the suspension order is liable to be revoked. 3. The brief facts of the case is that while the petitioner was discharging his services as a Range Forest Officer at Jamuguri Range, Golaghat Forest Division, a complaint was lodged on 08.03.2024 alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner had demanded bribe for facilitating unhindered movement of 3 (three) numbers of trucks, which carried stones from Nagaland through petitioner’s jurisdiction. On receipt of the said complaint, a case against the petitioner was registered being ACB PS Case No.19/2024 and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 08.03.2024. 4. Thereafter, the respondent Department placed the petitioner’s service under suspension by order dated 02.05.2024 with effect from 08.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had drawn the subsistence Page No.# 3/5 allowance as per the existing rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was served upon with show-cause notice on 19.09.2024 after the lapse of 90 days. 5. Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since no show-cause notice was served within the 90 days period, from the date of issuance of the suspension order, the suspension order is liable to be revoked. 6. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Forest Department submits that suspension order of the petitioner was reviewed twice i.e. 21.10.2024 and thereafter again on 27.01.2025. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. It appears that the review orders as claimed by Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department was not placed on record by the respondent No.2. It appears that this Court accordingly on 17.03.2025 directed the petitioner to file additional affidavit bringing the aforesaid orders on record so as to enable the Court to pass appropriate orders. It appears that the petitioner on 03.04.2025 has filed an additional affidavit before this Court bringing the aforesaid subsequent development on record. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said additional affidavit are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “3. That, the deponent humbly begs to state that on 29.10.2024, as per the ‘MINUTES OF THE MEETING TO REVIEW SUSPENSION CASES PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT HELD ON 29.10.2024 AT 3:00 PM IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, A-BLOCK, 4th FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN’, the State Respondents by constituting a review Page No.# 4/5 committee, had reviewed the impugned suspension order dated 2.05.2024 w.e.f. 8.03.2024 issued against the petitioner, and had extended the same until further orders. 4. That, the deponent humbly begs to state that on 27.01.2025, as per the ‘MINUTES OF THE MEETING TO REVIEW SUSPENSION CASES PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT HELD ON 27.01.2025 AT 3:00 PM IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, A-BLOCK, 4th FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN’, the State Respondents again by constituting a review committee, had reviewed the impugned suspension order dated 2.05.2024 w.e.f. 8.03.2024 issued against the petitioner, and had extended the same until further orders. The deponent herein reproduces an excerpt of the relevant portion for easy reference: ‘3. Sri Gobinda Taid, Forest Ranger (u/s) was caught red- handed on 8/3/2024. Since the delinquent officer was arrested by the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Assam and the enquiry is being conducted by the Home Department, the committee is of the view that there are chances that the delinquent officer may tamper with the evidences or influence the witnesses on being reinstated. Hence, the committee recommends extension of the suspension period until further orders.’ 5. That, the deponent humbly begs to state that vide order dated 18.03.2025, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department, had extended the suspension period of the deponent until further orders. 6. That, the deponent humbly begs to state and submit that as per the subsequent developments that had led to the review of the deponent's suspension order dated 2.05.2024 w.e.f. 8.03.2024, vide order dated 18.03.2025, which has extended the said suspension period of the deponent until further orders, is highly illegal, improper, arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and has no legal sanctity as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as well as the Hon'ble High Court in a plethora of judgments, that have held that if any review that has been made after the expiry of 90 (ninety) days, and such review has extended the period of suspension of the delinquent officer, then that review order is illegal, non-est in law and is also violative of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Part III of the Constitution of India, and, also, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it is crystal clear that no review Page No.# 5/5 of extension of the suspension order in question was made within the 90 days period. In-fact, the suspension is admittedly reviewed and extended after the expiry of 90 days period. Hence, the continuance of the suspension order beyond 90 days is totally unjustified and illegal. 10. That being so, the writ petition succeeds. Accordingly, the impugned suspension order dated 02.05.2024 is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant