An order of suspension must be communicated to the affected employee to be valid; failure to communicate results in unauthorized continuation of suspension.

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 suspension was not under taken.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner having been suspended from 01.07.2024 w.e.f. 20.06.2024, the review of suspension was not undertaken. The respondents however, issued a show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 by the communication dated 20.08.2024. The said show cause notice contained the statement of allegations, list of documents, as well as a list of witnesses. It is submitted that although the enquiry proceedings were initiated, but the same has not been completed. However, the suspension of the petitioner had lapsed by the efflux of time as the same was never extended by the concerned. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated in his service, however, that not having been done the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Forest Department submits that the review of the suspensions were duly undertaken. The first review of the suspension was undertaken on 14.11.2024 and subsequently it was extended again on 27.01.2025. These orders are enclosed to the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, a further review of the suspension was held on 23.04.2025 whereby it was decided to continue the suspension until further order. All these extension orders are the part of the affidavit filed by the State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only upon filing of the affidavit in the present writ petition the petitioner came to be aware that the review of suspension was carried out in favour of the continuance of suspension order. However, none of these orders reviewing the suspension were served on the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner being unaware of the steps taken to review the suspension, the said review orders cannot be considered to be treated as lawful in the absence of the petitioner being intimated by proper service of review of suspension orders.

6. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh V. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 395. He has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in S.P. Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2008 5 SCC 438 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders for review of suspension therefore, are not valid and that the suspension of the petitioner had lapsed as the said suspension was not extended as per the pro