Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010067462026 2026:GAU-AS:11780 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2030/2026 QUAZI ABDUL BASIT S/O LATE QUAZI ABDUL AZIM, VILL. MULLAGARM, P.O. KANAI BAZAR, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788710 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER RAMKRISHNANAGAR BLOCK RAMKRISHNANAGAR DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 78816 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY, J M SULAIMAN Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. AHMR Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the Respondents. 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 15.10.2018, placing him under suspension. 4. The petitioner in the present writ petition was vide an order dated 11.03.1994, appointed as a Grade-IV employee in Pechala M. E. School, Karimganj (presently renamed as Sribhumi). The petitioner was, implicated in a criminal case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No.413/2018, registered under Section 147/148/149/325/326/307/379 IPC. The petitioner was placed under arrest in connection with the said police case on 02.10.2018. The Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, vide an order dated 30.11.2018, proceeded to enlarge the Page No.# 3/7 petitioner on bail. The petitioner on being arrested, having remained under detention, for more than 48 hours, the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Karimganj, proceeded vide order dated 15.10.2018, to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner on being enlarged on bail, had submitted a representation dated 05.03.2019, before the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Sribhumi, intimating the authority about his release from custody with a prayer for his re- instatement in his services. The District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Karimganj, thereafter vide a communication dated 08.03.2019, required the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why Departmental proceedings should not be instituted against him in connection with the allegation levelled against him in the criminal proceeding so instituted. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Respondent Authorities, praying for re-instatement in his services by way of preferring a representation dated 24.12.2020. It is seen that the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Karimganj, vide a communication dated 28.01.2021, intimidated the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, that the petitioner has already been issued a show-cause notice on 08.03.2019, and he has submitted his reply, thereto. It was further projected that the petitioner was also enlarged on bail, by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj. The Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, was projected to have been not concluded. Being aggrieved by the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case, the Page No.# 4/7 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 having been arrested on 02.10.2018, in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.413/2018, came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 15.10.2018. The petitioner on being enlarged on bail, in connection with the said police case, had intimated the authorities about his release from custody, vide a representation dated 05.03.2019. Thereafter, it is seen that the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Karimganj, vide a communication dated 08.03.2019, had required the petitioner to submit his written explanation as to why Departmental proceeding should not be instituted against him, basing on the allegation existing against him in the said police case. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his written explanation in response to the communication dated 08.03.2019, on 12.03.2019. 7. This Court had granted time to the respondent authorities to file their affidavit in the matter, however it is seen that no affidavit in the matter has been filed. 8. 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 Page No.# 5/7 issued to the delinquent concerned, it further laid down that 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 reasoned order for extension of the suspension. 9. 9. 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.” 10. 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. 05.03.2019 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 Page No.# 6/7 under the provisions of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, was issued to the petitioner, within a period of 03 (three) months thereafter. 11. The Respondents have projected that the Disciplinary proceedings stood instituted against the petitioner vide the communication dated 08.03.2019. This Court has carefully perused the communication dated 08.03.2019, 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. 12. 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 05.03.2019, 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 15.10.2018, in the considered view of this Court has lost its currency and accordingly, the same cannot be held operative as on date. 13. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be re- instated in his services forthwith and the order dated 15.10.2018, issued toward placing him under suspension, is held to be no longer in currency. Necessary orders towards re-instatement of the petitioner in his services, shall be issued by the Page No.# 7/7 District Elementary Education Officer, Sribhumi, within a period of 07 (seven) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. Referring back to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), more particularly paragraph-21, thereof, the District Elementary Education Officer, Sribhumi, 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. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant