Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010198812025 2026:GAU-AS:7900 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5187/2025 NEKIBUZ ZAMAN S/O- GOLAM SHAH ZAMAN, R/O- COLLEGE ROAD, WARD NO. 15, COLLEGE NAGAR, BIDYAPARA, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR MUNICPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE CHAIRMAN FAKIRAGRAM MUNICIPAL BOARD FAKIRAGRAM ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER FAKIRAGRAM MUNICIPAL BOARD Page No.# 2/5 FAKIRAGRAM ASSAM 6:THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K MUNIR, MR A RAHMAN,MR. A. GAYAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Mr P K Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms U Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State of Assam and Mr B C Musahary, learned Standing Counsel for the BTC. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside his deemed suspension, passed purportedly under Rule 6 (2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as “the 1964 Rules”, pursuant to his arrest on 27.03.2025, in connection with ACB PS Case No. 29/2025, registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the unpaid subsistence allowance due to the petitioner, since the date of his deemed suspension, as well as with the prayer to reinstate the petitioner in service and release all consequential benefits. Page No.# 3/5 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Junior Engineer under the Fakiragram Municipal Board, he was arrested on 26.03.2025, in connection with the above mentioned case and he was placed under deemed suspension by the authorities in the Fakiragram Municipal Board. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was arrested on 27.03.2025 and that he was bailed out on 24.04.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension on 27.03.2025, on the date of his arrest under Section 6 (2) of the 1964 Rules, i.e., by the mandate of law, but the further mandate of law has not been followed by the authorities concerned. He submits that it is required under the law that within 3 (three) months of suspension, the petitioner should be given the memo of charges/charge sheet and if it is not served upon him within the 3 (three) months’ period, the suspension order gets ineffective. He further submits that service of the memorandum of charges within the said 3 (three) months’ period, if given, the authorities may extend the period of suspension by another period with a speaking order. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary -Vs- Union of India; reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3 (three) months, if within the said period, memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if the memorandum of charges is Page No.# 4/5 served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 6. He has also placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rakibuddin Ahmed -Vs- State of Assam; reported in 2019 (5) GLT 600, wherein it is held that although in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra), the suspension order was passed in contemplation of issuing the memorandum of charges, the same is applicable even in cases of deemed suspension made under Rule 6 (2) of the 1964 Rules. 7. On the other hand, Ms U Sharma, learned Government Advocate had placed the affidavit-in-opposition, submitted by the respondent No. 5, wherein it has been reflected that the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs. 3,36,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand and Five Hundred) only, till November, 2025. It is further stated that the petitioner be kept under suspension till the criminal case registered against him gets concluded in the trial. 8. It is provided that an employee can be placed under suspension, on being arrested in connection with any criminal case, and the said provision is provided for, under Rule 6 (2) of the 1964 Rules. It is the settled position of law that the suspension order made for a period of 3 (three) months can be extended only after serving the memorandum of charges/charge sheet on the employee within the said period of 3 (three) months, and if it is not served, the said suspension order gets ineffective. Further, it is decided by the Apex Court that if memorandum of charges are given within the said 3 (three) months’ period of suspension, the said suspension order can be extended after reasons being Page No.# 5/5 ascribed by the authorities. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner was placed under due suspension in the month of March, 2025, and till date, he has not been served with any memorandum of charges/charge sheet by the authorities concerned, and as such, by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the said suspension gets ineffective. 9. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3 (three) months’ period cannot be reckoned from the date of arrest, but from the date of his bail or his release. In the instant case, the petitioner has been bailed out in the month of April, 2025, and if, 3 (three) months’ period is reckoned from the date of his bail, the same is over much earlier and that he has not been served with any memorandum of charges. In fact, no memorandum of charges have been given to him till date. As such, the deemed suspension has become ineffective. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The authorities in the Fakiragram Municipal Board is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and allow him the financial benefits accustomed with his service. It is further directed that the authorities may also pay him the remaining subsistence allowance from December, 2025, till the date of his reinstatement. 9. Writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant