Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Mridu Paban Nath S/o Late Mina Ram Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5645 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2025
For the Appellant : I.H. Saikia
For the Respondent: B. Gogoi
The court upheld the suspension of the writ petitioner, emphasizing the need for timely reviews to prevent indefinite continuation of suspension barring a reasoned justification.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for quashing a suspension order - The writ petitioner challenged the suspension by the Commissioner & Secretary, alleging it was unlawfully extended beyond stipulated timeframes without justification, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. The Union of India & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 291. (Para 4)
(B) Administrative Procedure - The Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 mandates timely review of suspension orders, which was not adhered to in the subsequent review after the first. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner was suspended on 28.06.2024 for unauthorized absence and later joined another institution. Although the first review was timely, the second review occurred nearly 10 months later. (Para 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the extension of suspension due to the subsequent timely review and issuance of charges, but stressed adherence to timely procedures. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the suspension was unlawfully extended without periodic reviews and was it compliant with the Office Memorandum directives? (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledged that while the initial procedural requirements were met, the second review should adhere to the spirit of timely review as established by precedent. (Para 10)
Result: Writ petition disposed of, directing adherence to procedural safeguards in future suspensions.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is seeking the setting aside and quashing of the impugned notification whereby the writ petitioner on 28.06.2024 was placed under suspension by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Medical Education and Research Department.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28.06.2024 for the alleged grounds of unauthorized absence from duties since 01.05.2024 with a further allegation of joining Hayat Superspeciality Hospital as CEO. Thereafter the charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations was served upon the writ petitioner on 18.07.2024. Accordingly, the writ petitioner submitted its reply. Thereafter, on 23.08.2024, the writ petitioner was further served with an additional charge-sheet. Thereafter, the suspension of the writ petitioner was reviewed on 07.01.2025, and upon such review the suspension was further extended until further orders. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that thereafter the respondents have been arbitrarily continuing the suspension despite the expiry of 3 months since the date of the first review and extension. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that though the charges were furnished to the writ petitioner within the currency of the stipulated suspension period of 90 days, and the review of the suspension and extension thereof was also done within 6 months from the date of the issuance of the first charge- sheet, the second review/extension was carried out during the pendency of the writ petition after almost 9 months from the first review in complete violation of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. The Union of India & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 291 . He further submits that the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 clearly prescribes a quarterly review of suspension, Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet served upon the delinquent officer/employee every 3 months of the last 3 months of the suspension order for further necessary action. He accordingly emphasizes that it was imperative for the respondent to review the suspension of the writ petitioner every 3 months since the first review, i.e., within 6 months from the date of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet.
5. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 is silent as regards any subsequent review to be undertaken after holding the first review within 6 months from the date of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet. He further submits that in the instant case, since the respondent has already reviewed the suspension of the writ petitioner and extended the suspension on 26.09.2025 in strict compliance with the timeframe stipulated in the said Office Memorandum, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference whatsoever.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the contending parties and having perused the material available on record, including the case laws cited at the bar, it appears that pursuant to the directions of this court by the judgment & order dated 30.11.2017 in a series of writ petitions, the leading case being WP (C) No. 6465/2017, the State Government issued the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 reiterating the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). The said Office Memorandum directs that:-
(i) The Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet must be served upon the officer within 3 months from the date of the order of sus
