Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010147662026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3779/2026 SYEDA JURIMA AHMEDA WIFE OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BHOGPUR, P.O. AND P.S. - GORESWAR, DIST. - TAMULPUR, ASSAM, PIN - 781366. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD SAFETY AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION, ASSAM, ASOM SACHIBALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT ASOM SACHIBALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI - 06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI -36. 4:THE DRUGS CONTROLLER (I/C) ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI - 36. 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA, MR. B G OWARY,MR A SARANIA,N GOGOI Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. M Sarania, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, Dept. of Health & Family Welfare, Assam. 2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has assailed the prolonged suspension, occasioning in her case, in pursuance to issuance of an order dated 26.09.2025, placing her under suspension. 3. The Petitioner, herein, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta, Assam, was placed under arrest, in connection with Anti-Corruption Bureau P.S Case No. 51/2025, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, in pursuance to an FIR lodged against her. In the FIR lodged against the Petitioner, it was alleged that she had demanded bribe from the informant and the conversation between the informant and the Petitioner was recorded, which was also enclosed to the said FIR. The Petitioner, being detained, the Director of Health Services, Assam, vide an order dated 26.09.2025, proceeded to place the Petitioner under suspension, w.e.f the date of her arrest, i.e. Page No.# 3/7 16.09.2025, invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail, vide an order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the Court of the Special Judge, Assam. 3.1 Pursuant to being enlarged on bail, the Petitioner approached the Director of Health Services, Assam, vide a representation dated 23.11.2025, informing the fact that she was enlarged on bail, with a prayer for reinstatement in service. Thereafter, an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta, Assam, with regard to the issue, leading to the suspension of the Petitioner. After receipt of the report of the said Enquiry Committee, the Director of Health Services, Assam, issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 29.06.2026, instituting a departmental proceeding against her. The Petitioner, had, thereafter, submitted her show-cause reply on 07.07.2026, to the said show-cause notice. 3.2 The suspension of the Petitioner, not being reviewed and the same being prolonged, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition, praying for a direction upon the Respondent authorities for reinstating her in her services. 4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 4/7 5. The Petitioner, in pursuance to being placed under arrest, in connection with Anti-Corruption Bureau P.S Case No. 51/2025, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, was, vide order dated 26.09.2025, placed under suspension, by her Disciplinary Authority, invoking provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. The Petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail, vide an order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the Court of the Ld. Special Judge, Assam, and the said aspect of the matter, was intimated to the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner, by the Petitioner, vide a representation dated 23.11.2025. It is found that, thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner, had instituted a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 29.06.2026. 6. It is found that the drawal of the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, was admittedly, beyond the 3 (Three) months, from the date the Petitioner had intimated her Disciplinary Authority of being enlarged on bail. 7. The issue, with regard to prolonged continuance of an order of suspension, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. 8. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page No.# 5/7 paragraph 21 of the said decision, being relevant to the issue, arising in the present proceedings, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “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. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 9. A perusal of the conclusions reached by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), would reveal that an order of suspension would remain in currency, only for a period of 3 (three) months, from the date of issuance of the same, in the event, no show-cause notice, instituting a departmental proceeding against the delinquent, was so issued. It further stipulates that in the event, a Departmental proceeding is so instituted, within the period of 3 (three) months from the date of issue of the order of suspension, the Respondents authorities are to pass an order, after reviewing the Page No.# 6/7 necessity for continuing the delinquent, under suspension. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also would apply to a suspension, effected, in case of an employee, invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 10. This Court finds that the Respondent authorities had issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner, instituting a Departmental proceeding against her, only on 29.06.2026. The said show-cause notice, admittedly, was issued beyond the period of 3 (three) months, mandated for continuance of an order of suspension, prior to institution of a Departmental proceeding. Further, upon issuance of the said show- cause notice to the Petitioner, this Court finds that no review was carried out, with regard to the necessity of keeping the Petitioner under continued suspension and no order, in this connection, was issued. Accordingly, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the order of suspension of the petitioner had lost its force and accordingly, cannot be held to be subsisting, as on date. The petitioner, consequently, would be entitled to be reinstated in her services. 11. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the Learned Standing Counsel, Dept. of Health & Family Welfare, Assam, on instructions, has Page No.# 7/7 submitted that after issuance of the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2026, the Respondent authorities had not carried out any review, with regard to the necessity of keeping the Petitioner, under suspension. 12. In view of the said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the continuance of the suspension of the petitioner, being in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the said order of suspension of the petitioner is held to be not subsisting and accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in her services. 13. The order towards reinstatement of the petitioner in her services, be forthwith issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam, on receipt of a certified copy of this order, from the Petitioner. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant