Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010049772025 2025:GAU-AS:4534 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1356/2025 DR BISHWAJIT DAS S/O BIDHU BHUSHAN DAS, R/O -513, VTC - IRONGMARA, SILCHAR, P.O- IRONGMARA BAZAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM - PIN 788011. VERSUS THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS. (A CENTRAL UNIVERSITY), SILCHAR, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE- CHANCELLOR, ASSAM UNIVERSITY, SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM - 788011. 2:THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM VICE-CHANCELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM- 788011. 3:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM- 788011 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR. H R DAS,MR D KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 10.04.2025 Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the Assam University. Page No.# 2/10 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent authorities not reinstating the petitioner in service, in view of the fact that there had been no review of the deemed suspension of the petitioner, which had been made, vide order dated 19.08.2024 w.e.f. 15.08.2024, within the statuary period of 90 days, as provided in Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules). 3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Law of Assam University. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner by a student of 6th Semester in the Department of Law, alleging that the petitioner had tried to outrage her modesty by taking advantage of his position when she was alone in the petitioner’s chamber at around 4.30 PM. The FIR submitted by the student was registered as Dwarbond P.S. Case No. 24/2024 under Sections 74/75)1)(i)/75(1)(ii) of the BNS and subsequently the petitioner was arrested on 15.08.2024 in connection with the PS case. 4. Pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner on 15.08.2024, the respondent No. 2 placed the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 15.08.2024, vide order dated 19.08.2024. The petitioner was granted bail in the PS case on 20.09.2024 and the petitioner has submitted a representation on 23.09.2024, intimating the authorities for his release from jail. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the validity of a suspension order cannot survive beyond 90 days, unless a charge-sheet/memorandum of charges is submitted and a review for extension of the suspension period has been Page No.# 3/10 undertaken. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, having been released on bail on 20.09.2024 and having intimated the authorities regarding his release on 20.09.2024, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have submitted a charge-sheet/memorandum of charges, prior to the expiry of 90 days, w.e.f. 23.09.2024, i.e. 22.12.2024. However, the respondents had issued a charge-sheet on 07.03.2025 and no review of the suspension order had taken place. He submits that by applying paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the petitioner’s suspension order could not have remained in existence beyond 22.12.2024. As such, the suspension order of the petitioner, vide order dated 19.08.2024, should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service. 7. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the Assam University, submits that though the factual aspects of the case is not denied by him, he is not in agreement with the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner would have to be reinstated into service, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), inasmuch as, a fresh suspension order had been issued to the petitioner on 08.04.2025, which had been made pursuant to the resolution passed in Item No.3 in the 174th meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University on 13.03.2025. He submits that in terms of the proviso to Rule 7 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, no review of the suspension order of a Government servant, who is under deemed suspension, is required to be made within 90 days. He also submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Page No.# 4/10 Mandi Parishad and Ors. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another vs. Sanjiv Rajan Narendra Kumar Malik and another, reported in 1993 Supp3 SCC 483, a fresh suspension order can be issued by the authorities. He accordingly submits that as a fresh suspension order has been issued to the petitioner, vide order of suspension dated 08.04.2025, the suspension of the petitioner could not be revoked in terms of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the petitioner should not be reinstated into service. Mr. Keyal also submits that a disciplinary proceeding has already been initiated against the petitioner. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court has held at para 21 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. .....” 10. Rule 10(1)(2), Rule 10(6)(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules states as follows:- “10.(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or Page No.# 5/10 the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor - General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority – (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty- eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. EXPLANATION - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-Rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of Page No.# 6/10 suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub- rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.” 11. A perusal of the above provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules clearly shows that the currency of a suspension order cannot extend beyond 3 months, unless within this period, a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is 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. 12. A reading of Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10(6) shall be reviewed by the authorities, who is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension and pass a reasoned order for either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. 13. Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides that a deemed order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of ninety days, unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days. The proviso to Rule 10(7) provides that it shall not be necessary for review of a suspension order in the case of deemed suspension, if the Government servant continues to be under suspension and in custody at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case, will count Page No.# 7/10 from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority. 14. The proviso to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules clearly shows that though there is no requirement for review of a suspension order of a Government servant within 90 days, if he is in custody, a review of the suspension order is required to be made within 90 days from intimation of the date of his release from jail to the authorities and a reasoned order has to be issued for continuing with the suspension. 15. In the present case, the petitioner was released on 20.09.2024 and the fact of his release was intimated on 23.09.2024. As such, a review of the deemed suspension had to be made by the authorities within 90 days from 23.09.2024, which would end on 22.12.2024. As the petitioner’s deemed suspension order dated 19.08.2024 had not been reviewed within 90 days’ period, no order was passed for extension of the suspension. Thus, the petitioner’s continued suspension beyond 23.12.2024 was not proper. 16. The above being said, the counsel for the Assam University has taken a stand that a fresh suspension order can always be issued beyond 90 days of the earlier suspension order. This Court finds that the fresh suspension order has been issued during the pendency of this writ petition. The writ petition had been filed on 05.03.2025 and this Court on 10.03.2025 had issued notice to the respondents, which had been accepted by the counsels for the respondents on 10.03.2025 itself. Interestingly, while the issue of whether the deemed suspension order dated 19.08.2024 could be said to be valid, was being Page No.# 8/10 decided, the respondents have issued the order of suspension dated 08.04.2025, on the basis of a resolution taken on 13.03.2025. 17. In the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra), the Supreme Court had held that there was no restriction on the authorities to pass a suspension order a second time. However, it was also observed by the Supreme Court that the first order of suspension might be withdrawn by the authorities, on the ground that on that stage, the evidence appearing against the delinquent officer was not sufficient or for some reason, it was not connected with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra), has only stated that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time, without clarifying whether the same had been made on the basis of a different charge. Further, the second suspension order seems to have been issued due to the withdrawal of the earlier suspension order. The facts of that case are not similar to this case, as there was no withdrawal of the earlier suspension order in this case. Further, a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what follows from it. A little difference in facts, changes the precedential value of a decision. 18. This Court, on perusing the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra), finds that there is no discussion made with regard to Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The Supreme Court has only gone into the issue as to whether the allegation made against the delinquent officer therein was grave or not and it came to a finding that the allegations were grave. 19. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court had Page No.# 9/10 gone into a detailed discussion into the provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order could not extend beyond three months, if within the period of three months, the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet had not been served on the delinquent officer/employee. In the present case, the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet/memorandum of charges only after 7 months 23 days after the date of his arrest and 5 months 15 days after he had intimated to the authorities that he had been released from jail. 20. On considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the fact that no review has been undertaken by the respondents even till today, with respect to his earlier suspension order dated 19.08.2024, the earlier suspension order could not have been allowed to operate beyond 22.12.2024, inasmuch as, the validity of the same had expired on that date. Keeping in view the fact that the validity of the deemed suspension order dated 19.08.2024 had expired from 22.12.2024 and in the absence of any charge-sheet being filed prior to 23.12.2024 and no review being undertaken by the respondent authority, the said suspension order dated 19.08.2024 being unsustainable, is set aside. 21. As the fresh order of suspension dated 08.04.2025 has been issued during the pendency of this case and as the same is not the result of any new charge, this Court is of the view that no action could/should have been taken by the respondents, during the matter being sub-judice. This Court is accordingly of the view that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), and in view of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the order of suspension dated 08.04.2025 being arbitrary, it cannot be allowed to Page No.# 10/10 continue. The same is also accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, keeping in view the facts of the case, the respondents are given the liberty to transfer the petitioner to any other campus of the University. 22. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is hoped and expected that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is taken to its logical end as expeditiously as possible. The reinstatement of the petitioner should be done within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant