Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010006442026 2026:GAU-AS:13802 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/323/2026 NAZMUL HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O LT SIRAJUL ISLAM, R/O VILL BANSHKANDI PT II, PS LAKHIPUR, CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788103 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICERM CACHAR ASSAM 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER RAJABAZAR CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR. I ALAM,MR. B J GHOSH,MR. T SK Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case after he was placed under suspension vide issuance of an order dated 10.09.2025. 3. The petitioner, herein, while functioning as an In-charge Headmaster of Narainpur M.E.S. School, was arrested on 20.08.2025, in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No.108/2025. The said case was so registered basing on an FIR, lodged against the petitioner on 19.08.2025, wherein, it was, inter alia, alleged that on 16.08.2025, during school hours, the petitioner had misbehaved with the daughter of the informant and had tried to outrage her modesty. The learned Special Judge, POCSO, Cachar, Silchar, vide Page No.# 3/9 order dated 23.09.2025, was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, in the meanwhile, in view of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No.108/2025, the petitioner was vide order dated 10.09.2025, placed under suspension with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 20.08.2025. Subsequently, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 24.03.2026, a Departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner. The order of suspension of the petitioner having been continued with, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, submits that after the petitioner was placed under suspension, the Departmental proceeding was not instituted against the petitioner within a period of 03 (three) months, from the date, he was so placed under suspension. Mr. Mahanta, submits that the Departmental proceedings was instituted against the petitioner only vide issuance of show-cause notice dated 24.03.2026, which is beyond the period of 03 (three) months. Mr. Mahanta, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, had clearly laid down that a order of suspension shall remain in Page No.# 4/9 currency for a period of 03 (three) months from the date of its issue, in the event, a Departmental proceedings is not instituted against the delinquent. He submits that the decision further stipulates that, in the event, a Departmental proceedings is instituted against the delinquent within a period of 03 (three) months, from the date the delinquent, was so placed under suspension, a reasoned order is to be issued for the purpose of extension of the order of suspension. Mr. Mahanta, has submitted that the respondent authorities vide order dated 09.12.2025, had reviewed the order of suspension of the petitioner, however, he submits that the Departmental proceedings not having instituted in the meanwhile, said extension would be of no consequence and the petitioner was entitled to be re-instatement in his services, immediately on completion of 03 (three) months, from the date he was so placed under suspension vide order dated 10.09.2025. 5. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is serious in nature and accordingly, the petitioner on being placed under arrest in the criminal proceedings instituted against him, he was also placed under suspension. He submits that the order of suspension Page No.# 5/9 dated 10.09.2025, was duly reviewed by the competent authority and on such review, a order dated 09.12.2025 was passed. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent authorities on a review of the order of suspension of the petitioner having decided to extend the same, the order of suspension of the petitioner must be held to have remained in currency. 5.1. Mr. B. Kaushik, has further submitted that after a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner, herein, on 24.03.2026, a further review of the order of suspension of the petitioner was carried out and vide order dated 29.05.2026, the order of suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 03 (three) months w.e.f. 26.05.2026. Accordingly, he submits that the order of suspension of the petitioner being extended in accordance with the procedure mandated, the same has to be held to be valid and accordingly, the interference with the suspension of the petitioner would not be mandated to be made by this Court. 5.2. Mr. B. Kaushik, on instructions has submitted that the enquiry underway with regard to the charges against the petitioner vide show-cause notice dated 24.03.2026, is at the concluding stage and it is expected that the enquiry would be concluded within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. Accordingly, he Page No.# 6/9 submits that this Court, at this stage, would be pleased not to direct the respondent authorities for the re-instatement of the petitioner in his services. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner admittedly was placed under suspension vide an order dated 10.09.2025 w.e.f. 20.08.2025 i.e. the date on which he was arrested. The said order of suspension was extended by the Director Elementary Education, Assam, vide issuance of an order dated 09.12.2025. However, prior to issuance of the order extending the suspension of the petitioner, no Departmental proceedings was instituted against the petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice to him. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), in Paragraph-21, with regard to the issuance of his prolonged suspension had drawn the following conclusion; “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 Page No.# 7/9 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), in Paragraph-21, would go to reveal that the currency of order of suspension, shall remain valid for a period of 90 (ninety) days, from the date of issuance of the same. It further provides that, in the event, a Departmental proceedings is so instituted against the delinquent, who is placed under suspension, within the period of 90 days, from the date of issuance of the order of suspension, a reasoned order is to be issued for the purpose of extension of the order of suspension. Accordingly, without instituting a Departmental proceedings and/or a charge-sheet being laid in the criminal proceedings pending against a delinquent, the order of suspension would not be permissible to be reviewed after completion of period of 90 (ninety) days from the date, on which it was so issued. The order of suspension of the petitioner, accordingly, must be held to have lost its force. The said prescription is also made in an Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Chief Page No.# 8/9 Secretary to the Government of Assam, wherein, it was provided that it should be ensured that the currency of suspension order, should not extend beyond 03 (three) months, if within the period, the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent Officer of the employee. Accordingly, in respect of the petitioner, herein, after being placed under suspension vide order dated 10.09.2025, the show-cause notice being issued to him to be only on 24.03.2026, it can be safely held that the same was so issued to the petitioner instituting a Departmental proceeding against him, after completion of the period of 90 (ninety) days from the date he was placed under suspension. 10. Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), and the stipulations made by the Government of Assam, in the OM dated 04.02.2020, this Court is of the considered view that the order of suspension of the petitioner cannot be held to be in currency any further and the petitioner would be entitled to be re-instated in his services. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court directs the respondent authorities to re-instate the petitioner in his services. 12. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, shall pass appropriate order(s) towards re-instating the petitioner in his services within Page No.# 9/9 a period of 01 (one) week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. On re-instatement of the petitioner in his services, the posting of the petitioner shall be at the discretion of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, and for the purpose, the Director of Elementary Education, may rely on the directions contained in this connection in Paragraph-21 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 14. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant