JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that an FIR was filed being Bongaigaon P.S. Case 742/2021 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC wherein there has been certain allegations made of execution of a forged registered Sale Deed bearing No. 839/779. Subsequent thereto the petitioner was arrested on 24/6/2022. On the ground that the petitioner was arrested, the respondent authorities have exercised powers under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (for short “the Rules of 1964”) and had put the petitioner under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceedings made on 01.07.2022 giving effect from 24.06.2022. It further appears from the records that on 8/7/2022, the petitioner was granted the bail by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Misc. Criminal Case No. 137/2022. Thereupon the petitioner from time and again had requested the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension order and to re-instate him. However, the respondent authorities as alleged, in complete derogation to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr Choudhury Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 had continued with the suspension for which the petitioner is before this court.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. Kaushik has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam reported in 2020 (2) GLR 621 and submitted that the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Ajay Kr Choudhury(supra) would also be applicable in the case of a deemed suspension done in exercise of the powers under Rule 6(2) of the 1964 Rules. The learned counsel therefore referred to paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment which are reproduced herein below:-

“15. We have consciously applied our mind to the query raised by the learned Single Judge. Though the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury(Supra) is a case where suspension order was issued pending drawal of Disciplinary Proceeding and not a case of deemed suspension, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-20 whereby, the analogy of Section 162(2) Cr.P.C.,1976 has been brought in, we are persuaded to hold that the principles laid down in the said case cannot be restricted to an order of suspension issued only on contemplation of drawal of Disciplinary Proceeding and not for deemed suspension.

In our view, the issue should be seen from the perspective of the consequence and effect of suspension which is the same in both the cases. We also feel that no prejudice, whatsoever, would be caused to the Department by such interpretation inasmuch as no blanket order of revocation of suspension is passed and it is left to the Department to make periodic review within a period of 3(three) months and decide as to whether such suspension is required to be extended or not by assigning reasons. Whether such reasons are justified and germane can be the subject matter of a separate challenge.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference by holding that the principles laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury(Supra) would also be applicable in case of deemed suspension under Section 6(2) of the 1964 Rules.

16. Further, in the instant case, it is seen that the order of suspension is also on account of pending drawal of Disciplinary Proceeding in which case, periodic review within 3(three) months is otherwise held to be mandatory.

17. Since we have already answered the reference holding that periodic review in the case of deemed suspension is mandatory, the requirement of remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge would be a meaningless exercise and as agreed by the parties, while answering the reference, as above,