The suspension order and its extensions were upheld as procedural and compliant with statutory provisions, emphasizing the need for timely completion of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. Challenge made in this petition is to the order of suspension dated 07.02.2024 passed by District Commissioner, Biswanath, whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in connection with Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Assam Case No. ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner on the ground that even after submission of charge-sheet/memorandum of charges, the petitioner has been continued to be placed under suspension without passing a reasoned order extending the period of suspension.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Lot Mandal in the Office of the Circle Officer, Naduar Revenue Circle, Sootea under the then Sonitpur District (now Biswanath District) on 23.03.2023. He was arrested in connection with ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988 on the basis of ejahar filed by one Aliullah Ahmed alleging of accepting Rs.2000/- as bribe.

4. The District Commissioner, Biswanath vide an order dated 07.02.2024, placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6(2) of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 in connection with the ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was granted bail vide order 06.03.2024 and accordingly was released on the same day. The petitioner filed an application before the authority for revocation of his suspension order and to reinstate him in the service on the ground he has been released on bail.

5. The respondent authority issued a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and served the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.04.2024. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings ensued. However, as on today, it has not been brought to its logical conclusion as no order has been passed by the respondent authorities.

6. Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although memorandum of charges has been framed against the petitioner, no review or extension of the suspension order of the petitioner has been passed. Even after lapse of many months, no final order has been passed. However, arbitrarily continued to put the petitioner under suspension.

7. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -vs- Union of India through its Secretary & anr., reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 and the judgment and orders passed by this Court relying upon the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submits that the suspension order dated 07.02.2024 cannot be extended beyond ninety days and even the charge-sheet is filed, the authority cannot continue to put the petitioner under suspension without review or extension order. Even if it is extended, same has to be with reasons. Therefore, he submits that the suspension order dated 07.02.2024 may be set aside and quashed and may direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

8. Mr. D. Borah, learned State Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of suspension was reviewed and extended periodically. After issuance of the suspension order on 07.02.2024, vide order dated 10.05.2024, the suspension order of the petitioner was reviewed. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.08.2024, it was again reviewed and lastly, vide order dated 18.11.2024, the respondent authority has reviewed and extended the suspension order of the petitioner.