O R D E R

31.01.2022 Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned State Counsel, Assam appearing for the State respondents.

The petitioner was serving as a Lot Mandal under the amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. The Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari vide letter dated 29.10.2021, intimated the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari that there are some irregularities and corrupt practices in the Revenue Circle Offices. The Superintendent of Police, Nalbari in turn forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station. Thereafter, the Officer-in- Charge of Nalbari Police Station, on the basis of the aforesaid communication, registered a police case being Nalbari P.S. Case No. 523/2021 under Sections 120(B)/420/401/407 of IPC and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case on 21.09.2021.

On the basis of such arrest and detention, according to the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by order dated 11.10.2021. Thus the petitioner was suspended in terms of the provision of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail by this Court vide its order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 2476/2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has been under suspension till date neither any charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal case nor any departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by issuing any charge memo and the petitioner continued to remain under suspension till date. Such contention of the petitioner is not disputed by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned State Counsel, Assam. It is also a case of the petitioner that he filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari praying for revocation of suspension order vide his communication dated 21.12.2021. But till date, nothing has been done in this regard.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no exercise of review for continuation of the suspension order was undertaken. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench this Court passed in Rekibuddin Ahmed –Vs- State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2019-5-GLT 600 as well as on the ratio of the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury –vs- Union of India & Ors reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Atfur Rahman & Ors – Vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 2019 6 GLR 460 to buttress his contention.

In the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in Rekibuddin Ahmed (Supra) it is categorically held that principle laid down in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury (Supra) would also be applicable in case of deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. From the legal prescription propounded in paragraph 21 of the Ajay Kr. Choudhury (supra), it is seen that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employees.

In Atfur Rahman (supra) at paragraph 67 this Court held as follows:-

“67: It may be also noted that merely because an employee is arrested and detained more than 48 hours does not ipso facto lead to the inference that the employee is guilty of the offences. There may or may not be prima facie case against him but may be arrested and detained more than 48 hours on more suspicion and his involvement. It may be also noted under criminal jurisprudence till charge sheet is filed, it cannot be also presumed that there is a prima facie case against an accused. However, irrespective of the nature of charges, continuation of suspension of a person who had been arrested and detained would be guided by similar considerations as enumerated in Para 2.1.4 to 2.1.