Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Jnana Ranjan Das Son Of Late Dayal Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.
2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated01.07.2024, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest on 20.06.2024 as well as the subsequent review for extension of the continuation of suspension. The case projected before this Court is that the petitioner is employed as Forest Ranger under the Forest Department, Government of Assam. An FIR was lodged in connection with an investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam and the petitioner came to be arrested on 20.06.2024. Subsequently he was released on bail on 23.07.2024. Since, then the petitioner has been under suspension. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ajoy Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 read with other judgments of this Court the review of suspension which is required to be done prior to expiry of 90 days from the date of
An order of suspension must be communicated to the affected employee to be valid; failure to communicate results in unauthorized continuation of suspension.
Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court directives, requiring a reasoned extension if a charge sheet is served; otherwise, they are unsustainable.
Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court guidelines, requiring a reasoned extension beyond three months; failure to do so renders the suspension unsustainable.
The requirement of reviewing suspension orders within 90 days, as mandated by the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, applies to deemed suspensions as well, and failure to conduct the....
Suspension orders must comply with procedural requirements, including a reasoned extension within three months, as established by the Supreme Court, failing which the order is unsustainable.
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely without justification.
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....
The failure to timely review a suspension after the issuance of a Memorandum of Charges renders the suspension invalid, mandating reinstatement.
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
