Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046462025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1214/2025 DHANJIT DEKA SON OF LATE BHABIT DEKA, RESIDENT OF BAPUJINAGAR, W/N-4, P.O.- SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT BARPETA, PIN-781307, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6. 2:DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM 3:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL (IN-CHARGE) BARPETA CIRCLE DIST. BARPETA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S A KHALIFA, MRS. K DEVI,K BHARALI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ED, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 07.03.2025 1. Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner was suspended on 11.11.2024 and no Charge-sheet/Memo of Charge has been furnished to the petitioner. Further, there has been no review of the suspension order. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays that the petitioner’s suspension order should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. 2. Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondents, who had been asked to obtain instructions, has submitted a letter dated 05.03.2025 issued by the In- Charge Inspector of School, B.D.C., Barpeta, which is to the effect that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, vide office letter dated 05.03.2025. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. In Paragraph 21 of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), the Supreme Court held 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.” 5. The present writ petition has been filed on 03.03.2025 and the matter was listed for the first time on 05.03.2025. The departmental proceeding having been initiated only on 05.03.2025, it is clear that at the time of filing of the writ petition, no departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 On the other hand, as the petitioner had been suspended on 11.11.2024, the 3 (three) months time period expired for submission of a Charge- sheet/Memorandum of Charge had expired on 11.02.2025. 6. In view of the above, it is quite apparent that the suspension order of the petitioner beyond 11.02.2025 could not have survived, in the absence of a departmental proceeding being initiated within three months. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), the suspension order dated 11.11.2024 issued by the Inspector of School (In-charge), Barpeta District Circle having expired, is hereby set aside. The petitioner should be reinstated into service immediately. However, the respondents are given the liberty to transfer and post the petitioner to some other school or office, if they feel that the petitioner may be able to hamper the departmental proceeding. 7. With regard to petitioner’s submission that no Subsistence Allowance has been paid to the petitioner, the State respondents are directed to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner for the period the petitioner was under suspension. The same should be done within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant