Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court guidelines, requiring a reasoned extension beyond three months; failure to do so renders the suspension unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. Devarshi Sen Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 15.06.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest, placing him under suspension, invoking the provisions of Rule 61(a)&(c) of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, at the time of his suspension, was working as a Range Forest Office, Jorhat Range, Jorhat Division. In pursuance of the petitioner being placed under suspension vide order, dated 15.06.2024, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, had initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, herein, under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, by way of issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 09.08.2024.

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner while issuing the said Show Cause Notice, 09.08.2024; the respondent authorities had not passed a consequential order towards extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court had required the learned standing counsel, Forest Department, to receive instructions in the matter.

5. Today, when the matter was taken-up for hearing; Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, has placed before this Court, the Minutes of the Committee set-up for reviewing the suspension orders passed of officials in Environment & Forest, held on 29.10.2024. The committee in its said meeting, had resolved to extend the orders of suspension of all Officers except one Shri Iqbal Hussain, Forest Ranger. The learned counsel has also submitted that the period of suspension of the petitioner, also was recommended by the said Committee to be so recommended.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 in paragraph No. 21, had held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3 months if within the period, the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. It was further held that if the memorandum of charge/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension.

7. In the case on hand; the petitioner after being placed under suspension, vide order, dated 15.06.2024, a disciplinary proceeding came to be so instituted against him with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 09.08.2024. The instructions as placed on record by Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, would go to reveal that with the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09.08.2024, the respondent authorities had not taken any decision for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner and such decision was taken only on 29.10.2024. Accordingly, the directions passed by this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), in the present case, has been violated by the respondent authorities rendering the order of suspension, dated 15.06.2024, as issued in respect of the petitioner, unsustainable.

8. It is to be reiterated that there is no reasoned order brought on record by the respondent authorities towards extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner, herein. The Minutes of the Committee set-up to review the suspension cases of the officials of the Department concerned, in its meeting held on 29.10.2024, even if it is held that the same also applies to the case of the petitioner, herein, the said decision is not a reasoned one and is also in violation of the directions as contained in paragraph No. 21 of the Hon’ble Supreme C