Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010041182026 2026:GAU-AS:7698-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/59/2026 SAUMYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE S/O LT. HARENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, R/O ZERO POINT LANE, KATHAL ROAD, SILCHAR-05, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, CACHAR SILCHAR-0 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury and Mr. S.S. Ahmed, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, Assam. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 03.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondents/State. 2. The appellant, a Senior District Administrative Assistant in the Office of the District Commissioner, Cachar, Assam, was arrested in Page No.# 2/5 connection with ACB Police Station Case No.47/2024. He remained in jail for more than 48 hours. As such he was suspended by invoking the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1964”). 3. During the period of suspension, a departmental proceeding also was initiated against the appellant, which, according to the information provided to this Court, still is pending. 4. The appellant in the meantime approached this Court seeking revocation of his suspension on grounds of delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings. The prayer of the appellant was allowed by a Bench of this Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary -Vs- Union of India & Anr. :: (2015) 7 SCC 291 and Rafed Ali Ahmed -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. :: 2023 (3) GLT 718. 5. Pursuant to such an order passed by this Court, referred to above, the appellant was reinstated in service on 09.06.2025. 6. It appears that the criminal case against the appellant continued and it is presently at the stage of trial. 7. Barely 6(six) months after the reinstatement of the appellant, he was again placed under suspension and this time under the purported exercise of powers under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964, which reads as hereunder:- “6. Suspension – (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension – Page No.# 3/5 (a) ….. (b) ….. (c) where a case against him in respect of 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.” 8. The appellant questioned such order of suspension on the same being a second suspension with respect to the same case, which contention was not sustained by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.195/2026 holding that the earlier suspension was under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964, whereas the latter suspension was under the provisions contained in Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964. 9. The afore-noted judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2026 is under challenge in the present appeal. 10. We may also state here that while dismissing the case of the appellant, the learned Single Judge had observed that if the second suspension of the appellant continued beyond 90 days, he would have the liberty to approach the Court again questioning such continuance of suspension on the ground of rationality and reasonableness. 11. By the present appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment on 2(two) grounds, namely - (i) that the invocation of the provision under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964 is nothing but a way to overreach the orders of the Court in the first instance when the suspension order was revoked; and (ii) that there was no necessity of Page No.# 4/5 putting him under suspension when he had been transferred to a different location from the place where the departmental proceedings was continuing. As on date, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are continuing against the appellant. 12. The issue raised before this Court is whether the earlier deemed suspension, which continued for a long time and which was revoked by the intervention of this Court and the present suspension purportedly under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964 of the Rules of 1964, are distinct. The answer to this poser is that these are two instances where suspension can be ordered. 13. With the arrest and the appellant remaining in custody for more than 48 hours, he suffered deemed suspension and during the period of this suspension, the departmental proceedings was initiated against him. Since it had continued for a long time with no certainty as to the time when the departmental proceedings would be concluded, the suspension order was revoked by the order of this Court. The appellant had been reinstated. 14. The second suspension under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964, in this instance, ostensibly is on the ground of pendency of a criminal offence under trial. This situation was the same when the earlier suspension order was in force. Along with a departmental proceedings, a criminal case also was instituted against the appellant in which he has been charge-sheeted and now the case is under trial. This suspension has also continued for more than 90 days. Page No.# 5/5 15. Under the afore-noted circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct for revocation of the suspension of the appellant and his reinstatement in service. We say so for the following reasons – (i) the departmental proceedings and the criminal case both are continuing; (ii) there is no allegation of any tampering with the recording of evidence in the criminal case; (iii) there is no complaint of non-cooperation of the appellant in the departmental proceedings either; and (iv) the appellant has been transferred to a different location. 16. Considering these aspects of the matter, we have directed for revocation of the suspension of the appellant. However, the authority shall be at liberty to invoke the provisions contained under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964, if it is found that the appellant is not cooperating in the departmental proceedings, or for that matter, trying to deflect the course of justice in the criminal case. 17. With the afore-noted direction, the appeal stands allowed and disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant