The failure to timely review a suspension after the issuance of a Memorandum of Charges renders the suspension invalid, mandating reinstatement.

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 dated 10.04.2024, placed the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. the date of his arrest, i.e. 18.03.2024, under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Rules, 1964”). The petitioner was granted bail by the Special Judge (PC Act) on 22.04.2024, which was duly communicated to the concerned authority.

5. The disciplinary authority, vide Notification dated 26.04.2024, issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner directing him to submit his written statement in defence against the charges levelled therein. The charges pertain to lack of integrity and breach of trust amounting to gross misconduct, based on a report dated 19.03.2024 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, ACB, PS, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption. On the same day, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the departmental proceedings. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.05.2024, denying the allegations levelled against him and seeking exoneration as well as reinstatement in service.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that, for reasons other than bona fide he has been kept under suspension till date and the authorities have failed to review and extend his suspension as required under law. Whether the suspension of the petitioner ought to be continued has not been considered by the authorities even after the lapse of more than six months. The law mandates that even if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet is issued within three months, the suspension must nonetheless be reviewed and extended, with recorded reasons, within six months. As per the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, upon issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet, the senior-most Secretaries are required to undertake a review of the suspension within six months to determine the desirability of its continuation. Therefore, since the authorities failed to review the suspension of the petitioner within the stipulated period of six months, the suspension order has become inoperative.

7. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the Memorandum of Charges