Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE
Harendra Nath Baishya Bania S/O- Late Debendra Nath Baishya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By The Principal Commissioner And Secretary To Government Of Assam, Finance Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.04.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.03.2024 following his arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 27/2024, registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”).
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Finance and Accounts Officer in the year 2004. He is presently serving as Financial Adviser in the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HOFF and is also holding additional charge as Treasury Officer, Kamrup (M).
4. On 18.03.2024, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Assam, in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 27/2024, on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) from one Samim Ahmed. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, vide the impugned order date
The failure to timely review a suspension after the issuance of a Memorandum of Charges renders the suspension invalid, mandating reinstatement.
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.
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
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....
Suspension without timely charge-sheet violates procedural safeguards, rendering it illegal per principles laid out in relevant Supreme Court ruling.
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....
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely without justification.
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
