Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010058292025 2025:GAU-AS:4979 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1584/2025 ASAR UDDIN S/O- LATE MD. SURMAN ALI, R/O- MASLY, P.O.- BHANGA BAZAR, P.S.- BADAPUR, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GHY- 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SDC SRIBHUMI NILAMANI ROAD PIN- 788710 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2023 and/or to issue direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding drawn against him, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.02.2024, within a particular time period. 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioner herein this petition, namely, Asar Uddin, was serving as Principal of Bhanga H.S. School in Sribhumi district. He was arrested in a criminal case, being Badarpur P.S. Case No. 136/2023, under Sections 354/376(3) of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension, vide order dated 20.05.2023 (Annexure-4) and subsequent to his arrest on 27.05.2023, he was released on bail on 12.01.2024, by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, on 28.01.2024, he had filed one representation for his reinstatement in service. Thereafter, show cause notice was served upon him on 23.02.2024 and the petitioner had submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the same was concluded in the month of August, 2024, but no final result of the same is declared till date. Further, the petitioner has neither been reinstated in Page No.# 3/5 service nor been issued reasoned order extending his suspension, although the period of 90 days had expired long back. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having suspended the petitioner on 20.05.2023, the suspension order has neither been reviewed nor been extended by the respondent authorities. Mr. Khan further submits that the law in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, and also by this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam, reported in 2020 2 GauLR 621, and as such, the impugned order dated 20.05.2023, is bad in law, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 5. Ms. 5. Ms. Das, learned Standing counsel for the respondents has produced a written instruction before this Court, and in paragraph No. 6 of the said instruction, it has been stated that the suspension order of the petitioner has neither been reviewed nor been extended within the period of 90 days from the date of his suspension, while he was arrested on 27.05.2023. He was released from jail on 12.01.2024 and after his release from jail, show cause notice was issued to him on 23.02.2024, and considering the interest of the student community, suspension order of the petitioner has not been revoked, and therefore, Ms. Das has contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 20.05.2023, and the decisions referred by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 4/5 7. The law regarding limits on suspension order has been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), in paragraph No. 21, as under: “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....” 8. The proposition of law, so laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) is also followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra). 9. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, I find that the petitioner was suspended vide impugned order dated 20.05.2023. Subsequently, he was arrested by police on 27.05.2023, and he was granted bail by the learned trial Court on 12.01.2024. Thereafter, subsequently, show cause notice was issued to him on 23.02.2024 and departmental proceeding had admittedly started against him and the same was also concluded in the month of August, 2024. However, no final order has been passed till date. 10. It is an admitted fact that the suspension order of the petitioner has neither been reviewed nor been extended after 90 days from the date of his suspension. Admittedly also within the said period, memorandum of articles of charges was not served upon the petitioner. In view of the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), suspension order cannot be allowed to stand for being not reviewed after 90 days. Since the mandate of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is violated herein this case, the impugned suspension order dated 20.05.2023, Page No.# 5/5 cannot be allowed to stand as such, the same stands set aside and quashed. 11. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take the departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner to a logical conclusion as soon as practicable. 12. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant