JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal, preferred by the State, arises out of the judgment and order dated 22/04/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2409/2020 whereby, a bunch of writ petitions were disposed of by interfering with the orders of suspension impugned in those proceedings primarily on the ground that the orders of suspension had not been reviewed within a period of 90 days. The operative part of the order dated 22/04/2021 is quoted herein below for ready reference :-

“21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no other option but to follow the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Rekibuddin Ahmed (supra). Accordingly, the orders of suspension which are not reviewed within a period of 90 days and where the show cause notice has not been issued are set aside and quashed. This Court would also like to add the observation that no prejudice, whatsoever would be caused to the Department inasmuch as, no blanket order of revocation of suspension is passed and it is left with the Departments to make periodic review within a period of three months and to decide as to whether such suspension is required to be extended by assigning reasons. Further, in tune with the observations of the Division Bench, this Court is also hasten to add that the respective Departments would be at liberty to transfer the petitioners to any non-sensitive posts.”

2. The appellant’s case, in a nut-shell, is that since the order placing the respondent No1 under suspension was issued under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964,(for short “Rules of 1964” ) there was no requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to periodically review the order inasmuch as, the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 would not be applicable in the facts of this case.

3. It appears from the materials available on record that while working as an Accounts Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer, North Lakhimpur PHE Division, the writ petitioner/respondent was caught red-handed while accepting bribe. He was arrested in connection with ACB PS Case No. 15/2019 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently released on bail. However, in view of section 6(2) of the Rules of 1964, the Disciplinary Authority had placed him under suspension by order dated 07/12/2019.

4. The respondent no. 1 as writ petitioner had challenged the order of suspension dated 07/12/2019 by filing WP(C) No. 2409/2020 contending that his prolonged suspension was illegal. During the pendency of the said writ petition, departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent No 1 vide notification dated 10/08/2020 and a communication was also issued to him intimating that there was no decision to revoke the suspension order dated 07/12/2019. However, the order of suspension had not been reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No 1 had approached this court for the second time by filing WP(C) 5523/2020. Both these writ petitions, along with other connected matters, were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the common judgment and order dated 22/04/2021 by placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Rekibuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam and others [WP(C) 3218/2019], holding that the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) would be applicable even in the cases of deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964. As such, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to review the order dated 07/12/2019 before the expiry of 90 days.

5. It is to be noted herein that the question as to whether the Disciplinary Authority would be entitled to place an employee under prolonged suspension without reviewing the order of suspension came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ca