IMPORTANT POINT
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.

ORDER :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr.J.I.Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.Kaushik, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department.

2. The petitioner herein prays for setting aside his suspension order dated 27.02.2024 which was effective from 18.01.2024, on the ground that no charge sheet has been filed in the departmental proceeding initiated against, within 3 months days from the date of effect of the suspension order, besides no review having taken place within the said period of three months for extension of the suspension order.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury -vs- Union of India & anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee. However, the currency of a suspension order could be extended beyond three months if a memorandum of charge/charge sheet is issued within three months of the operation of suspension order, subject to a further condition that a review for extension of the suspension period is to be made by the State respondents.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner, who was holding the charge of Principal of Kaoimari Higher Secondary School, Nagaon, was arrested on 18.01.2024 in connection with ACB PS Case No. 10/2024 under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State respondents issued suspension order dated 27.02.2024 against the petitioner w.e.f. 18.01.2024. The petitioner was released on bail on 01.03.2024 and the same was informed to the authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.05.2024, praying for re-instatement of his service and for vacating his suspension order. The respondent authorities issued the memorandum of charge/charge sheet against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding that had been initiated against the petitioner on 07.05.2024. Thereafter, the respondent authorities extended suspension period of the petitioner for another 90 days period w.e.f. 27.05.2024, vide order dated 05.06.2024.

5. As stated earlier, the petitioner’s case is that as no review had taken place within 90 days from the date of coming into effect of the suspension order dated 27.02.2024, for extension of the suspension period and as no memorandum of charge/charge sheet had been submitted by the respondents within the 3 months period, which was to be counted from the date of coming into effect of the suspension order dated 27.02.2024 which was from 18.01.2024, for extension of the suspension period and as no memorandum of charge/charge sheet had been submitted by the respondents within the 3 months period, in terms of the suspension order dated 27.02.2024 which was effective from 18.01.2024, the petitioner’s suspension order had to be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), besides the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed -vs- State of Assam & ors {WP(C) No.3218/2019} and in the judgment and order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nepal Chandra Mandal-vs- State of Assam { WP(C) No.447/2024}.

7. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department, on the other hand, submits that in terms of the judgment of another Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafed Ali Ahmed -vs- State of Assam & ors {WP(C) No.455/2023}, the suspension period of three months, in a case covered under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short,