O R D E R

31.01.2022 Heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.

Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Assam and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department, Assam.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 17.11.2016. The case of the petitioner is that while serving as Forester-I, the petitioner was suspended under the provision of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1964) by the respondent No. 6.

3. The petitioner was so suspended as the petitioner was under police custody beyond 48 hours in connection with a offence Report being O.R.No.: WR/15/2016 dated 16.11.2016 and Memo No. WR/12/Offence/2016/2109-11 dated 17.11.2016 by the Forest Ranger, Western Range, Bagori, inter alia alleging that the petitioner has violated the Sections 44, 49A, 49B, 52 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 57 and is punishable under Section 51 of the said Act read with Section 51B of Wildlife (Protection) (Assam Amendment), Act 2009.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is still continuing under suspension and no Charge Sheet/Final Complain/Charge Memo has been filed till date.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that no review on the decision of suspension has been carried out under the provision of the Manual on departmental proceeding and as mandated under Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

6. It is also projected by Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kr. Choudhury –Vs- Union of India and Ors reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Rekibuddin Ahmed – Vs- State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (5) GLT 600 and of a coordinate Bench in Atfur Rahman & Ors –Vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 2019 6 GLR 460, the petitioner can not be allowed to be under suspension beyond three months. He Further contends that as no exercise of review for continuation of the suspension order was undertaken within three months from the date of suspension and as no charge Memo has been issued during this period, the suspension order has become a nullity in view of the aforesaid proposition of law.

7. Therefore, Mr. J. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent State has violated the aforesaid mandates as well as the mandate of the guideline, this Court is required to direct the authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service forthwith.

8. Countering the such submissions of Mr. Roy, Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC)

submits that though the law has been laid down in the aforesaid cases but the same cannot be used as an absolute rule of application in all the cases. According to Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, in the aforesaid two cases i.e. Rekibuddin Ahmed (supra) and Atfur Rahman (supra), the issue of alternative remedy of appeal was not considered. Therefore, there is a difference between the present case and the earlier cases. According to Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, the Rule 14 of the Rules 1964 mandates for a remedy of appeal for a person who is put under suspension and such remedy need to be availed within a period of 90 days as per mandate of Rule 17. According to Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal during the said period and as the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy mandated under the Rules, 1964, therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not like to interfere in this matter as the writ petition itself is not maintainab