IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension orders must be reasoned if extended beyond three months, especially when charges are served, as per the Supreme Court's ruling.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the suspension order dated 14.10.2023 of the petitioner has been extended by another three months. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the order extending the suspension of the petitioner is not a reasoned order, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . He accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service as Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Chaiduar Education Block, Gohpur, Biswanath district.

3. Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that as there had been a review of the suspension order of the petitioner and as there has been an extension of the same due to proper reasons, there is no ground for setting aside the impugned order extending the petitioner’s suspension period.

4. Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department has also submitted another order dated 18.12.2024 issued by the respondent No. 1, wherein the suspension period of the petitioner has been again extended for an additional three months, on the basis of the suspension review committee meeting held on 10.12.2024.

5. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

6. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , the Supreme Court had held that the suspension order of a delinquent officer/employee should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet was not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. If the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension order.

7. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2023 in connection with Anti-Corruption PS Case No. 80/2023 under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended from service, vide order dated 14.10.2023 in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964, w.e.f., 06.10.2023. The respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2023 to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence/reply on 25.01.2024. The petitioner was released on bail on 07.11.2023, which was informed to the respondents on 04.12.2023.

8. In the present case, the charge sheet having been filed within three months, the only requirement of the State respondents was to conduct a review of the suspension, to ascertain whether the suspension order was to be extended and as to whether there were reasonable grounds to extend the suspension order. The impugned order dated 08.06.2024, by which the initial suspension order of the petitioner has been extended for an additional three months, shows that the petitioner had demanded bribes for doing favours and that the same had caused serious embarrassment to the Department of School Education, besides denting the image of the Department.

9. Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1 is to the effect that after submission of the charge sheet, the suspension order of the petitioner was reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee on 16.03.2024 and the order for extension of the suspension period was issued on 08.06.2024. It is also reflected in para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, that the Suspension Review Committee again held a meeting on 07.09.2024, by which the suspension of the petitioner was