Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010214762025 2026:GAU-AS:1143 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5747/2025 LANI BARMAN S/O BIDHAN BARMAN, VILL- WARD NO. 7, GACH KALIBARI ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- KAARIMGANJ, DIST- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, KAR BHAWAN, ASSAM, G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KAR BHAWAN ASSAM G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES SILCHAR ZONE ID-GAH ROAD SILCHAR ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) SRIBHUMI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, MS. S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TAXES, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the State respondents. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final consideration and disposal at the stage of admission hearing. 3. The petitioner by way of institution of the present proceeding has assailed the prolonged suspension ensuing in his case after issuance of the order dated 15-02-2025 by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, placing the petitioner under suspension by invoking the provision of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. 4. The petitioner, herein, while working as ‘Nazir’ in the office of the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, Assam was arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 19/2025 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 12- 02-2025. On being placed under arrest and he having spent more than 48 hours in detention, the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, Assam vide order dated 15- 02-2025, proceeded to place the petitioner, herein, under suspension w.e.f. the date of his arrest, i.e. 12-02-2025 by invoking the provision of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules of 1964”). The petitioner, herein, thereafter was vide order dated 05-03-2025 enlarged on bail by the Page No.# 3/6 Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 19/2025. The petitioner was released from detention on 07-03-2025. The petitioner on being enlarged on bail, vide his representation dated 28-07-2025 informed the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, Assam about his enlargement on bail and prayed for revocation of his order of suspension. The respondent authorities, thereafter, on 03-11-2025 proceeded to review the order of suspension of the petitioner and extended the same till 03-02- 2026. It is to be noted that no departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner with regard to the allegation of misconduct existing against him and it is stated in the Bar that in the criminal case against the petitioner, no charge sheet has been laid till date. It is under the said circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for his reinstatement in his service by revoking his order of suspension issued in his case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 15-02-2025 and at the relevant point of time, he was under detention in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 19/2025. The petitioner on being released from his such detention on 07-03-2025 had preferred a representation before the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, Assam informing the authority about his release from detention. It is settled a position of law that the period of 90 days for which an order of suspension would remain valid in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Ajay Kr. Chaudhary Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, in respect of a case of deemed suspension, is to Page No.# 4/6 be computed w.e.f. the date a representation is submitted by the delinquent before the departmental authorities intimating the later about his release from detention. The representation dated 28-07-2025 as submitted by the petitioner was received in the office of the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Sribhumi, Assam on 28-07-2025 and it is w.e.f. 28-07-2025 that the period of 90 days would now be required to be so computed. It is seen that after the said representation dated 28-07-2025 was so submitted by the petitioner, herein, till 28-10-2025, the departmental authorities have not instituted any departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein. It is also not brought on record by the respondents that during the said period the Investigating Agency in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 19/2025, had on conclusion of such investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein. There being no departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner and/ or a charge-sheet being filed in the matter against him in the criminal proceeding so pending, the currency of the suspension order of the petitioner cannot extend beyond 03 (three) months w.e.f. 28-07-2025. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that further continuance of the order of suspension of the petitioner as ordered vide order dated 15-02-2025 would not be permissible. 7. The respondent authorities have placed before this Court the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee dated 03-11-2025 which had considered the order of suspension of the petitioner, this Court has perused the said minutes and finds that the extension of the period of suspension as recommended by the said Committee would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, during the period of 90 days when the said suspension order issued against the petitioner was in currency w.e.f. 28-07-2025, i.e. the date when Page No.# 5/6 he had intimated the authorities about his release from detention on being enlarged on bail, no departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner, herein. Further it is not brought on record that a charge-sheet was laid during the said period against the petitioner by the Investigating Agency in the criminal proceeding pending against him. 8. In view of the above discussions, further continuation of the suspension of the petitioner would not be mandated and accordingly the petitioner, herein is directed to be reinstated in his service forthwith. 9. However, noticing the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that his continuation may not be called for against a post of sensitive nature; this Court by relying on the further directions as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of the Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra); directs that the respondent authorities would be free to transfer the petitioner to any other post existing in the Department so as to prevent the petitioner from misusing and/or obstructing the investigation/ enquiry pending against him. The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to pass such direction(s) with regard to the duties required to be so performed by the petitioner in the matter. 10. In this connection, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) in paragraph No. 21, is again extracted here-in-below, for ready reference: “21. ………………………………………………………. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of Page No.# 6/6 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. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant