Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010000832026 2026:GAU-AS:1162 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/195/2026 SAUMYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE S/O LT. HARENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, R/O ZERO POINT LANE KATHAL ROAD, SILCHAR- 05, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR- 0 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. A.G. Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.01.2026 Page No.# 2/8 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. A. Garg, District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar is also present through video conferencing pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 28.01.2026. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of suspension dated 20/22.12.2025 primarily on the ground that the petitioner was earlier suspended upon being arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 47/2024, in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, “the Rules of 1964”). It is the further case of the petitioner that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 26.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 659/2025 had set aside the said suspension on the ground that it was in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 3/8 Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as in Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2023 (3) GLT 718. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the basis of the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 659/2025, the petitioner was reinstated vide an order dated 09.06.2025. However, all of a sudden on 20/22.12.2025 the petitioner was again placed under suspension. 3. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Authorities having already suspended the petitioner earlier and the said suspension having been set aside, could not again suspend the petitioner in terms with Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned order of suspension dated 20/22.12.2025 amounts to overreaching the orders passed by this Court whereby the earlier suspension order was set aside. 4. Per Contra, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that the impugned suspension order has been passed in terms with Rule 6(1) (c) of the Rules of 1964, whereas the petitioner was earlier suspended in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 on the ground that the Page No.# 4/8 petitioner was arrested and remained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. The learned Senior Government Advocate further submitted that in the meantime circumstances have changed inasmuch as the Memorandum of Charge has already been submitted and disciplinary proceedings are underway. Additionally, the related police case is under investigation/trial as indicated by the grant of prosecution sanction. 5. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record including the instructions placed by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. A copy of the said instructions has also been handed over to Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel who is assisting Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel during the course of the hearing. 6. Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 reads as under: “(2) A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of such detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his Page No.# 5/8 duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.” 7. A perusal of the above quoted Rule shows that when a Government servant is detained in custody, whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. 8. At this stage, it is very pertinent to take note of that this Court while dealing with the applicability of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) passed a judgment in the case of Rafed Ali Ahmed (supra) wherein it was held that if within a period of 3 (three) months from the date on which intimation regarding release from detention is furnished, the Memorandum of Charge/ Charge Sheet is not served upon the delinquent employee, the suspension would be in violation to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 9. In the backdrop of the above, it is very pertinent to take note of that though the petitioner was suspended on 18.06.2024 w.e.f. 12.06.2024 on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and Page No.# 6/8 detained in custody, but the petitioner upon being released on bail and the intimation duly being provided, the Respondent Authorities did not serve the Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of such intimation. It is under such circumstances that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 26.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 659/2025 set aside the suspension order along with consequential orders passed and directed reinstatement of the petitioner within a period of 15 (fifteen) days. 10. It further appears from the materials on record, more particularly, the documents which are kept on record and marked with the letter “X” that in the meantime the Memorandum of Charge has been served upon the petitioner and the departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated. It is further seen from the communication dated 18.12.2025 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administrative Department to the respondent No. 2 that certain defects were noticed in the departmental enquiry proceedings and as such the Enquiry Officer has been directed to rectify those mistakes, thereby giving further opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said enquiry proceedings. 11. Taking into account that in the meantime the departmental Page No.# 7/8 enquiry proceeding is ongoing, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as Rafed Ali Ahmed (supra) would not apply inasmuch as there is a direction upon the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of 4 (four) months. 12. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of the 1964. The said Rule 6(1)(C) is reproduced herein below: “(c) Where a case against him in respect any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.” 13. A perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rule stipulates that the Appointing Authority has the power to suspend a Government Servant where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 14. This Court has also taken note of the reasons so assigned in the impugned order of suspension and it is the opinion of this Court that interference with the suspension order at this early stage would not be in the interest of justice, more so, when the impugned suspension is not challenged on the grounds of reasonability or rationality, but Page No.# 8/8 rather on the ground of earlier suspension order having been set aside. As noted above, the setting aside of the earlier suspension order has no relation with the present suspension order which has been made on the ground that the related police case is under investigation/trial upon the grant of prosecution sanction. Under such circumstances, this Court is therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of suspension dated 20/22.12.2025 at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 16. The personal appearance of Mr. A. Garg, District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar is hereby dispensed with. 17. Be that as it may, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court in the circumstance the said suspension order is extended beyond a period of 90 (ninety) days on the ground of its reasonability and rationality. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.02.02 16:45:32 +05'30'