JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. R. R. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is the Head Teacher and was posted to 1554 Non Sandrapara LP School, Assam. On 13.09.2022, one Siddik Ali lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Sukchar Police Station alleging that on 08.09.2022, at about 9.30 PM, the petitioner had kidnapped his minor daughter, namely, Smt. Moushumi Khushbu and forcefully detained her in an unknown place and he doubted that the petitioner had sexually molested the girl and sold her outside the State. Upon receiving the said FIR, a police case was registered being Sukchar P.S. Case No.152/2022, under Sections 457/363/368/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereupon, on 14.09.2022, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case.

3. It appears from the records that the petitioner filed a bail application before this Court which was registered and numbered as Bail Application No.2906/2022, and this Court, vide an order dated 07.12.2022 taking into account that the petitioner was behind the bars for 84 days and the victim has refused medical examination and the petitioner got married with the victim, granted bail to the petitioner.

4. It further appears in the meantime subsequent to the arrest of the petitioner on 15.10.2022, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending Departmental Proceedings and subject to the approval of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on the ground that the petitioner was arrested vide Sukchar P.S. Case No.152/2022, under Sections 457/363/368/ 376(3) IPC with immediate effect.

5. The petitioner thereupon on the ground that neither a Memorandum of Charge has been served upon the petitioner within the period of 3 (three) months nor the period of suspension was extended by the Review Committee even after the period of expiry of the 3 (three) months from the date of deemed suspension has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. The Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam and Others , reported in (2020) 2 GLR 621 whereby the Division Bench of this Court held that law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) would also be applicable to such deemed suspension made under the provision of Rule 6 (2) of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964).

7. Upon the writ petition being filed, this Court vide an order dated 01.02.2023 had issued notice and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Elementary Education Department was directed to obtain instructions as to whether the principles laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) have been duly complied with or not.

8. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) has categorically laid down that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within the said period, the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. Further to that the Supreme Court also observed that if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension period. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court , in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra) categorically observed that in cases of deemed suspension also the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) would be applica