Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010039502025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/88/2025 HARI PRASAD DAS S/O LT. SONABAR DAS, R/O. GOHAIGAON WARD NO 5, P/O. JAPISAJIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, PIN 787001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATIOIN ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHTI 19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BISWANATH P.O. AND DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-78417 6 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CHAIDUAR EDUCATION BLOCK P.O. GOHPUR DIST- BISWANATH ASSAM PIN 78417 For the appellants : Ms. T. Som, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. R. Mazumdar, SC, Education Page No.# 2/3 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 16.05.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6046/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order dated 08.06.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1 extending the suspension period of the appellant for three more months. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Chaiduar, District Biswanath, Assam. He was arrested by the police on 06.10.2023 in connection with an anti-corruption case. He was suspended from service vide order dated 14.10.2023 in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as “Rules of 1964’), w.e.f. 06.10.2023. Thereafter, Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. The respondent authorities, while reviewing the suspension order, taking into consideration the facts of the case has extended the suspension period of the appellant for three more months vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2024. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the order of extension of the suspension period, has observed that the respondent authorities considered the complaint that had been made against the appellant in relation to the demand of bribe for giving favourable orders to the employees and this conduct of the appellant caused embarrassment to the department and, therefore, the authorities decided to extend the period of suspension of the appellant vide order dated 08.06.2024. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going Page No.# 3/3 through the material available on record, we are of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order is not unjust or unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no case for interference is made out and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant expeditiously. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant