Suspension orders in disciplinary proceedings must be reviewed within 90 days; otherwise, they become invalid, ensuring the right to a fair trial and administrative efficiency.

Judgment :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the appellants State and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The appellants have put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1467/2024, wherein the suspension of the petitioner has been set aside, on the ground that no order for extension or review of the suspension order had been passed by the State appellants, prior to the expiry of three months’ period after the initial suspension order had been issued. The learned Single Judge thus held that the order of extension of the suspension, subsequent to the expiry of three months from the date of taking effect of the suspension order, would not cure the defect of not having undertaken a review for continuing the suspension order. The above decision had been made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (5) GLT 600, which was in relation to a case of deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

3. The counsel for the appellants submits that the departmental proceeding is going to be concluded within three weeks and if the impugned judgment and order is to be implemented, the same would cause great problems to the appellants, as the appellants have been charged with accepting a bribe. The counsel for the appellants thus submits that the direction to the appellants, to reinstate the respondent, should be set aside.

4. The counsel for the appellants further submits that the fact situation in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is different from the present case, in view of the fact that in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), memorandum of charge/charge sheet had not been submitted for a number of years. However, in the present case, charge sheet/memorandum of charge had been submitted a few days after the expiry of the 90 days validity period of the suspension order.

5. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that para 22 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) makes it amply clear that a memorandum of charge/charge sheet would have to be filed within three months, to be counted from the date of issuance/coming into force of the suspension order or else, the suspension order loses its validity/force. However, if a review is undertaken prior to the expiry of the three months and an order for extension of the suspension order is issued, the effect of a suspension order can be extended. He also submits that in a case where a memorandum of charge/charge sheet is submitted within three months, then also a reasoned decision is to be taken by the respondents, for extension of the suspension period.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) states as follows:-

“It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observati