JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department.

2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that on 3/8/2022 while the petitioner was posted at Lakhipur Range, Cachar Division, Silchar, the petitioner was arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 22/2022 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the alleged ground of demand of bribe. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of an order dated 9/9/2022, the Special Judge, Assam granted the petitioner bail. When the fact pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner came to the notice of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner vide a notification dated 20/9/2022 was put under suspension pending drawal of the disciplinary proceedings in exercise of the power under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964( for short ‘the Rules of 1964). The petitioner thereupon on various occasions submitted representations for reinstatement. However, the respondent authorities continued to keep the petitioner under suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that till date, the Memorandum of Charge/ the Chargesheet has not been served upon the petitioner and therefore the continuation of the suspension order beyond the period of 3 months is in violation to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. It is in that premises the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court vide order dated 21/3/2023 issued notice making it returnable on 28/4/2023. This Court further sought the instructions from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department as to whether any departmental proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner. Further to that, as to whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been complied with.

4. Today when the matter has been taken up, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department with all fairness submitted that till date no memorandum of charge/the chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner. He further submitted that till date the respondent authorities have not taken any steps for the purpose of initiation of departmental proceedings.

5. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of paragraph No. 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) which is reproduced hereinunder :

“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 the extension of the suspension. 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 recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise 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, departme