Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010052282025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1456/2025 MONOJ KUMAR DAS S/O- LATE SITA RAM DAS, RESIDENT OF GARALIYA (SARUSAJAI), P.O. SAWKUCHI, GUWAHATI-40, DIST.- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI ASSAM 5:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOJAI ZILLA PARISHAD Page No.# 2/3 HOJAI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR C GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 09/04/2025 Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2, 3 & 5 and Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent no.4. While working as the Secretary of the Bordolong Gaon Panchayat, Hojai, by order dated 05/10/2024, the writ petitioner herein was placed under suspension pending drawl of departmental proceeding against him. The departmental proceeding was apparently initiated on the basis of complaints received by the respondent no. 2 as regards certain irregularities in the functioning of the writ petitioner as the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. On 05/10/2024 itself, a show cause notice, enclosing the statement of allegation, was served upon the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was also appointed on 05/10/2024 so as to enquire into the charges brought against the writ petitioner. What is noteworthy herein is that on the date of issuance of the show cause notice itself, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Enquiry Officer so as to enquire into the charges brought against the petitioner without even waiting for his show cause reply. What effect the same would have on the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding is a matter which could be pertinent at an appropriate stage, as and when, the enquiry report is submitted. However, since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been raised before this Court, no comments in that regard is necessary for the present. Suffice is to note herein that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 05/10/2024 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no review and/ or extension of the order of suspension, by furnishing reasons, have been made by the authorities till date. Page No.# 3/3 Taking note of the grievance expressed in the writ petition, by order dated 17/03/2025, the learned departmental counsel was asked to obtain instruction. Today, when the matter is called up, Ms. N. Borah, learned departmental counsel has categorically submitted that no review of the order of suspension dated 05/10/2024 has been carried out till today. After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of the State of Assam and another Vs. Ajit Sonowal and others reported in 2023(6) GLT 115, law is well settled that an order of suspension, unless reviewed and/ or extended by a reasoned order within the period of 90 days from the date of issue of the same, would automatically lapse by operation of law and such an order cannot be revived or given a fresh lease of life by issuing any subsequent order. Since it is the admitted position of fact that the order of suspension dated 05/10/2024 has not been reviewed till today i.e. even after expiry of nearly six months, there can be no element of doubt that the said order has lapsed by operation of law. The same is true even if the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned order of suspension dated 05/10/2024 has become unsustainable in law at this point of time. The same is accordingly, set aside. The respondents are, however, granted 2 (two) weeks’ time, either to conclude the departmental proceeding or to reinstate the petitioner in service, in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant