Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Pradip Kalita S/o Dharo Kalita – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of suspension dated 27.01.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that due to failure on the part of the authorities to review of the order within the period of 90 days from the issuance of the same, the order of suspension has already lapsed by operation of law. As such, the impugned order dated 21.01.2024, as extended from time to time, is liable to be set aside by this court and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated in service forthwith. The facts and circumstances of the case, leading to the filing of this writ petition, narrated in brief, are as hereunder.
3. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Lot Mondal on 23.02.2006. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely without justification.
The suspension order and its extensions were upheld as procedural and compliant with statutory provisions, emphasizing the need for timely completion of disciplinary proceedings.
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, as established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing timely disciplinary action.
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
Prolonged suspension of an officer requires justification; mere pendency of proceedings is insufficient without adequate reasoning.
The failure to timely review a suspension after the issuance of a Memorandum of Charges renders the suspension invalid, mandating reinstatement.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee requires adequate justification, especially when delays in departmental proceedings are not attributable to the employee.
A suspension order must be accompanied by a reasoned order for extension beyond three months if a charge-sheet is served, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
When an administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks conscious of Court in a sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards, power of judicial re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
