Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010252862025 2026:GAU-AS:891 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6656/2025 MAMTAZ BEGUM W/O AHMED ABDUL KUDDUS, RESIDENT OF ZURONI PATH, RGB ROAD, P.O. DISPUR, P.S. GEETA NAGAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, TRAINING, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Page No.# 2/10 Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the prolonged suspension as effected in the case of the petitioner after she came to be placed under suspension vide issuance of an order dated 14-02-2024, invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short the Rules of 1964). 3. The petitioner while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of the Director of Pension, Assam came to be arrested on 08-02-2024 in connection with ACB PS Case No. 15/2024 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner on being placed under arrest and having spent more than 48 hours in detention, the Director of Pension, Assam vide order dated 14-02-2024 proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 08-02-2024 by invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. The petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam vide order dated 12-03-2024 and she was released from detention on 14- 03-2024. After being released from detention, the petitioner was served with a show- cause notice dated 30-04-2024 drawing a Disciplinary Proceeding against her. The petitioner on 09-05-2024 submitted her written statement against the said show-cause notice dated 30-04-2024. Upon submission of the written statement, a departmental enquiry was directed to be held in the matter and the petitioner was directed to be present before the Enquiry Officer. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the Director of Pension, Assam vide a show-cause notice dated 08-08-2025 proceeded to frame additional charges against the petitioner, herein. The petitioner vide her written Page No.# 3/10 statement dated 16-08-2025 responded to the additional charges now framed against her vide the show cause notice dated 08-08-2025. The petitioner being aggrieved by her prolonged suspension and no review, thereof, being carried out, has approached this Court by way of instituting the present proceeding assailing the prolonged suspension as resorted to by the respondent authority in her case. 4. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while a Disciplinary Proceeding was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a show cause notice dated 30-04-2024, no order came to accompany the said show cause notice, towards extending the period of suspension of the petitioner upon review of the same. He submits that the respondent authorities having not reviewed the suspension of the petitioner, the continued suspension of the petitioner is in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary Vs. UoI & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He submits that in terms of the said decision it is a mandatory requirement that along with the memorandum of charge so served upon the delinquent officer/ employee, a reasoned order is requisite to be so passed for extension of the period of suspension. Mr. Choudhury submits that no such order extending the period of suspension of the petitioner having been issued along with such show cause and/ or proximate thereto, the order of suspension had lost its force and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in her service. 5. Per contra, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents has disputed the said contention of the petitioner and has submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner, herein, is grave in nature and considering the Page No.# 4/10 misconduct as committed by the petitioner, it would not be in public interest to reinstate the petitioner in her service before completion of the Criminal as well as the Departmental Proceeding instituted against her. He submits that a charge-sheet having been so issued and no time-frame so prescribed for a review of the suspension, after issuance of a charge-sheet, within a period of 3(three) months as permitted for currency of a suspension order; it is for the departmental authorities to consider as to whether, it would be expedient to revoke the order of suspension and/or to continue to keep the delinquent officer/employee under suspension basing on the facts and circumstances as arising in each case. Mr. Chutia submits that the Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner being underway, this Court would be pleased to refrain from interfering with the order of suspension of the petitioner and also refrain from directing from reinstatement of the petitioner, herein. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner, herein, was placed under suspension by invoking the provision of Section 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. It is settled position of law that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) squarely applies to the deemed suspension so effected in respect of a Government employee under the provision of Section 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), more particularly, in paragraph No. 21, had laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(three) months if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet, is not served on the Page No.# 5/10 delinquent officer/employee: If the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served; a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 8. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), is of 2(two) parts: one, contemplating a situation wherein a departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the delinquent officer/ employee within a period of 3(three) months with effect from the date, such employee was placed under suspension. In such a circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the currency of a suspension order shall not extend beyond 3(three) months, if within this period; the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. The said directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) would not have any application in the present proceeding, inasmuch as, the departmental proceeding was admittedly initiated against the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date, he was so placed under suspension. Coming to the second part of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. This part of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be read in conjunction of the first part i.e. the prescription as made for currency of a suspension order i.e. for a period of 3(three) months. Accordingly, understanding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as noted- above, it is to be held that if a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served upon a delinquent officer/ employee within a period of 3(three) months from the date of his order of suspension; for an extension of the order of suspension, a reasoned order must Page No.# 6/10 be so passed. 9. The implementation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), in the State, was so done vide issuance of an Office Memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel(B) Department, wherein, it was mandated that as follows: “It is therefore directed that all the Senior Most Secretaries of all the Departments shall ensure that the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of three months of period from the date of issuance of order of suspension. They shall also ensure that the currency of the 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 within 3(three) months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, whenever necessary.” 10. The respondent State having already issued the said Office Memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, a right accrues to the petitioner, herein, for seeking a direction for her reinstatement in her service on account of the fact that on the date of issuance of the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet and/or on the date of it being served upon her; a reasoned order as mandated to be so issued in terms of the provisions of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of its decision in Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) as well as Office Memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, was not so done, rendering the continuation of the suspension, to be null and void. 11. Having noticed the law declared in the matter in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and implemented by the State respondents vide the issuance of the Office Page No.# 7/10 Memorandum, dated 04-02-2020; this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities cannot act in violation of the law as laid down in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and it being a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it would be binding on all concerned in the country. 12. Having noticed the above position; this Court again would like to refer back to the law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), more particularly to the opening lines of paragraph No. 21, which being relevant is extracted here-in-below: “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 extension of the suspension.” 13. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would, therefore, mandate that a suspension order being issued; the currency of the same, would not extend 3(three) months if within this period; the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee. The second part of the law mandates that if the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served; a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The second part of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conjunction with the first part. Accordingly, it is to be understood that a currency of an order of suspension while not being permissible to be extended beyond 3(three) months from the date of its issue, if a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ Page No.# 8/10 employee and if a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is so issued within the period of 3(three) months; the same must necessarily be accompanied with a reasoned order extending the order of suspension. In other words, either, on the date, a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is so issued and/or invariably on the date; the same is served on the delinquent concerned; such memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet must necessarily be accompanied with a reasoned order extending the suspension of the delinquent. The effect of non-service of such a reasoned order on the delinquent, when the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is so served; would be that the order of suspension would cease to operate and the delinquent officer/ employee, would be required to be reinstated in his service. 14. Applying the conclusions reached hereinabove to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is an admitted position that neither, on the date of issuance of the show-cause notice dated 30-04-2024, to the petitioner, herein, nor on the date, it was so served upon her; the respondent authorities had not, on a review, carried-out of the suspension order of the petitioner, issued a reasoned order for the extension of the period of her suspension and served the same on her. Accordingly, applying the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) in paragraph No. 21 thereof; this Court has no hesitation to hold that the suspension of the petitioner, ceased to have an effect and the same, cannot be said to be in currency after the date, the show-cause notice dated 30-04-2024, was served upon the petitioner. 15. 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 Page No.# 9/10 reinstated in her service forthwith. 16. However, noticing the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that her 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 her. 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. 17. 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 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.” Page No.# 10/10 18. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant