Requirement for authorities to review the continuation of suspension every three months as per the Supreme Court pronouncement

JUDGMENT :

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard Ms. B Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. R M Das, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 being the authorities under the NC Hills Autonomous Council and Ms. D D Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 4 being the Commissioner cum Executive Magistrate, Dima Hasao, Haflong.

2. The petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher Class II (Series) in the Mahur Higher Secondary Schoosl, Dima Hasao, Haflong was placed under suspension by the order dated 12.12.2019 of the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao.

3. A reading of the order goes to show that the suspension was made by referring to Haflong Police Station Case No. 133/2019 under Section 120(B)420/468/471/409 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Magistrate enquiry vide D.C. office memo no. NCH/EL/IC-34/2019-20/582-85 and the letter of the I/O of the Haflong Police Station dated 09.12.2019.

4. Although the aforesaid police case and the Magistrate enquiry report and the letter of the I.O. were referred, a reading of the order of suspension goes to show that the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect for gross negligence of duty, pending drawal of departmental proceeding.

5. A reading of the order goes to show that it is not a suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 but it is a suspension pending drawal a departmental proceeding meaning thereby a suspension under Rule 6(1).

6. It is also informed to us that after the order of suspension, a departmental proceeding had been drawn by the show-cause notice dated 04.01.2021. But however, no material is made available that the authorities have taken any decision to review the continuation of the suspension of the petitioner.

7. Paragraph 21 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 provides that the order of suspension would have to be reviewed by the authorities every three months justifying that the continuation of the suspension is required and if it is not done so, the order of suspension would no longer be sustainable.

8. In the instant case, as no review has been made by invoking the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), the order of suspension dated 12.12.2019 in respect of the petitioner issued by the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflong which is annexed as Annexure-VII, page-28 to the writ petition stands set aside. However, the interference with the order of suspension shall not preclude the respondents to continue with the departmental proceeding that had already been initiated.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.