Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010154832026 2026:GAU-AS:11775 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3982/2026 CHANDRADHAR DAS SO LT MANIRAM DAS, RO DHOLKUCHI, DEULKUCHI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 781354, HEAD TEACHER, (TUTOR), NARAMDAS LP SCHOOL VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM 2:SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR 3:DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR 4:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSA MUSALPUR 5:BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GORESHWAR BAKS Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P CHALIHA, MS M ROY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.1; and Mr. B. C. Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage and is being disposed of by the present order. 3. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case after issuance of the order dated 08.12.2025, placing him under suspension. 4. The petitioner, herein, was provincialised in his services as a Tutor by the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Assam, and was posted in such capacity to Naram Das L.P. School, Baksa, vide an order dated 05.02.2021. The petitioner is presently working as a Head Teacher (Tutor) in the said school. It is projected that in connection with the conduct of a lottery, by an organization in the name “Satyakam Sangha Page No.# 3/8 and Puthibharal”, Dholkuchi, wherein, the petitioner was acting as its President, an FIR came to be lodged, which was registered as Tamulpur P.S. Case No.351/2025, against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said police case on 07.12.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner on 08.12.2025, was remanded to judicial custody. The arrest of the petitioner coming to the knowledge of the Respondent Authorities, the petitioner having remained under detention for more than 48 hours, the Director of Education, BTC, proceeded vide an order dated 08.12.2025, to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mushalpur, Baksa, vide an order dated 15.12.2025. The petitioner in pursuance to his release on bail, approached the Respondent Authorities by way of submitting a representation dated 30.12.2025, intimating the authorities of his enlargement on bail and praying for his re- instatement in service by revoking the order of his suspension. The said representation was followed by a further representation dated 19.01.2026, to the same effect. The Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Goreswar, by projecting himself to be the Enquiry Officer, issued a communication dated 24.02.2026, to the petitioner requiring him to submit his written explanation as to why Disciplinary action should not be initiated and/or Page No.# 4/8 taken against the petitioner as per the applicable rules. The petitioner accordingly, submitted his written explanation on 02.03.2026, clarifying his role in the matter of conduct of the said lottery, as well as by projecting that the said lottery was conducted for a public cause and not for personal gain of the organizers. Thereafter, the Respondent Authorities, having not reviewed the order of suspension of the petitioner and the same having the effect of causing prolonged suspension in his case, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner admittedly after being arrested in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No.351/2025, was issued with a order dated 08.12.2025, placing him under suspension. The said order was so issued by the Director of Education, BTC. The petitioner after his enlargement on bail in connection with the said police case registered against him, is found to have approached the Respondent Authorities, by way of submitting a representation dated 30.12.2025, intimating the authorities about his such release on bail and praying for his re-instatement in services. The jurisdictional Block Elementary Education Officer, as the Enquiry Officer, had issued to the petitioner a communication dated 24.02.2026, requiring Page No.# 5/8 him to submit his written explanation as to why Disciplinary Action should not be initiated against him as per applicable rules for allegation, involved in the police case registered against him i.e., Tamulpur P.S. Case No.351/2025. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his written explanation on 02.03.2026. 7. This Court vide order dated 31.07.2026, had required the Standing Counsel, BTC, to receive his instructions in the matter, with regard to the status of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. Mr. B. C. Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, submits that the Disciplinary proceedings was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of the communication dated 24.02.2026, and the proceedings, thereon, is still pending finalization. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, had laid down that an order of suspension, shall remain in currency for a period of 03 (three) months, if within the said period of 03 (three) months, a show-cause/Memorandum of Charge, is not issued to the delinquent concerned, it further laid down that the in the event a show- cause/Memorandum of Charge, is so issued to the delinquent concerned, the respondent authorities have to carry out a review with regard to the necessity of continuance of the suspension of the delinquent and issue a Page No.# 6/8 reasoned order for extension of the suspension. 10. Paragraph-21 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), being relevant 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.” 11. Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that even if, the period of 03 (three) months as mandated for currency of a order of suspension, is reckoned w.e.f. 30.12.2025 i.e. the date the petitioner had informed the authorities of he being released from custody on being enlarged on bail, this Court does not find that a show-cause/Memorandum of Charge as contemplated under the provisions of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, was issued to the petitioner, within a period of 03 (three) months thereafter. Page No.# 7/8 12. The Respondents have projected that the Disciplinary proceedings stood instituted against the petitioner vide the communication dated 24.02.2026. This Court has carefully perused the communication dated 24.02.2026, and finds that the same does not have the effect of institution of a Departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the same was so issued only requiring the petitioner to submit a written explanation as to why a Disciplinary proceeding in accordance of the applicable Rules shall not be initiated against him. 13. In view of the above discussion, there being no Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner within a period of 03 (three) months, which is reckoned for the purpose of the present case from 30.12.2025, the directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), is found to have been violated in the present case. Accordingly, the suspension of the petitioner effected vide the order dated 08.12.2025, in the considered view of this Court has lost its currency and accordingly, the same cannot be held operative as on date. 14. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be re-instated in his services forthwith and the order dated 08.12.2025, issued toward placing him under suspension, is held to be no longer in currency. Necessary orders towards re-instatement of the petitioner in his Page No.# 8/8 services, shall be issued by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) within a period of 07 (seven) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. Referring back to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly paragraph-21, thereof, the Director of Education, BTC, is at liberty to post the petitioner on his re-instatement, against any other equivalent post, other than the post from which he was placed under suspension, so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation pending against him. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant