Point of Law: Departmental Authority neither has initiated a Departmental Proceeding (DP) by framing charge against Petitioner nor he has been re-instated into service, which according to Petitioner is against settled proposition of law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The case projected by the Petitioner in a nutshell is that he is an Assistant Teacher of Dholai Molai ME School under Katlichera Elementary Block in the district of Hailakandi. He was arrested on 06.09.2022 in connection with Katlichera PS Case No.152/2022 u/s 302/34 IPC (GR Case No.893/2022) and he was sent to judicial custody by the Court below. Since he was under arrest beyond 24 hours, the BEEO, Katlichera Elementary Block put him under suspension vide order dated 09.09.2022.

3. But the Petitioner was subsequently released on bail by order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Misc (B) Case No.461/2022. It is the further case of the Petitioner that after release from the jail on 25.11.2022, he submitted representation on 24.12.2022 for his reinstatement into the service which is not yet considered by the Departmental Authority. It has further been stated that the Departmental Authority neither has initiated a Departmental Proceeding (DP) by framing charge against the Petitioner nor he has been re-instated into the service, which according to the Petitioner is against the settled proposition of law.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya 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 Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015)7 SCC 291 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 wheresus pension 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) CrPC.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 part