Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Bulang Marik, Son of Late Bulang Mangha – Appellant
Versus
State of AP, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Heard learned counsel M. Kato for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. S. Tapin for the respondent.
2. The petitioner Shri Bulang Marik has filed this petition to set aside and quash the impugned suspension order No. HOME-11011/11/2024/865 dated 02.06.2024 issued by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the service of the petitioner, from the date when he was suspended, and to direct the respondents to allow the consequential service benefits.
3. It is contended that the suspension order of the petitioner was not reviewed within 90 (Ninety) days as the petitioner was in custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted interim bail which was made absolute on 18.01.2025. An RTI application was filed to find out why the suspension order was not reviewed even after 90 (Ninety) days. It is submitted that this writ petition was filed on 01.05.2025 and thereafter, the suspension order was reviewed when notice was issued in connection with this petition.
4. It is contended that the suspension order was not reviewed for more than 270 (Two Hundred and Seventy) days from the date of suspension of the peti
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
The requirement of reviewing suspension orders within 90 days, as mandated by the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, applies to deemed suspensions as well, and failure to conduct the....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
The failure to timely review a suspension after the issuance of a Memorandum of Charges renders the suspension invalid, mandating reinstatement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
