Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010031082025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1041/2025 JIBESH KR. DEB SARMA S/O. LT. SACHI NATH DEB SARMA, R/O. VILL.-DHARMAPUR, WARD NO.- 1, P/S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AMINGAON 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHAMARIA REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J PATOWARY, MR. R BARTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : SR, GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Page No.# 2/5 Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 21-07-2023, which, according to the writ petitioner, has not been reviewed nor extended by the competent authorities after the expiry of 90 days. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner while working as a Land Record Assistant in the office of the Circle Officer, Chamaria Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup, was placed under suspension vide order dated 21-07-2023 by invoking the power under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The order of suspension was issued in the wake of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 50/2023 made on 06-07-2023 and kept in detention in police custody exceeding 48 hours. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner by serving charge-memo dated 07-08-2023. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the lapse of more than 01 year 09 months till today, neither any progress has been made in the departmental proceeding nor has the authorities reviewed and/ or extended the order of suspension beyond the period of 90 days. By referring to the observatiosn made in paragraph 21 in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury Vs. UoI, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 by the Supreme Court of India as well as paragraph 13 of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Assam Vs. Ajit Sonowal, reported in 2023 (6) GLT 115, Mr. Patowary submits that in the absence of review of the order of suspension within 90 days of issuance of the same, the order itself would lapse by operation of law and therefore, the order dated 21-07- Page No.# 3/5 2023 deserves to be set aside by this Court and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated in service on such count alone A number of opportunities have been granted to the respondents to obtain instruction and file affidavit. By the order dated 17-03-2025 passed by this Court, it had further been observed that if no affidavit is filed by the respondents on or before 04-04-2025, the writ petition will be taken up for disposal based on the materials available on record. It is apparent from the record that no affidavit has been filed by the respondents till date. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam could not address this Court on the contentious issue raised in the writ petition. However, Mr. Handique has made an attempt to question the maintainability of the petition by taking the plea of non-joinder of the Director of Land Records as necessary party in the writ petition. Be that as it may, the law as regards the issue involved in this writ petition is very well settled after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Choudhury (Supra). In paragraph 21 of the said decision the following observations have been made, which are reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:- 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/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet 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 concerned person 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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.” By following the decision of the Ajay Choudhury (Supra), this Court has also held in the case of Ajit Sonowal (Supra) in paragraph 13 as follows:- “13. From careful analysis of the above decisions of the Supreme Court what follows is that unless review is held within 90 days, an order of suspension including one issued due to the detention of an employee in custody for 48 hours, would not survive nor can such an order be granted fresh lease of life by carrying out a review after expiry of the period of 90 days. In view of the law laid down in the case of Dipak Mali (Supra) and Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) it is axiomatic that the order of suspension dated 07.12.2019 had lapsed after the expiry of 90 days due to want of review of the same by the Disciplinary Authority. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and order dated 22.04.2021.” From the ratio of the decisions in Ajay Choudhury (Supra) and Ajit Sonowal (Supra) it is, thus, crystal clear that in the absence of review and/ or extension of the order of suspension before expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the same, the order would automatically lapse by operation of law. This appears to be the case in hand. There is nothing to show that the order of suspension dated 21-07-2023 was reviewed/ extended before expiry of 90 days. The order dated 21-07-2023 has, therefore, lapsed by operation of law on the expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the same. A Page No.# 5/5 declaration to that effect is hereby made by this Court. Consequently, the respondent would now be duty bound to reinstate the petitioner back in service. The said exercise be carried out within a period of 02 weeks from today. The departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner shall, however, continue in accordance with law and no interference in that regard is called for by this Court at this stage. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant