GAHC040019702025 2025:GAU-AP:1362-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/51/2025

1:The State of AP and 5 Ors

represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat,

Itanagar.

2: The Commissioner of Home

Age:

Occupation :

Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

Civil Secretariat

Itanagar.

3: The Deputy Secretary

Age:

Occupation :

Department of Home

Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

Civil Secretariat

Itanagar.

4: The Under Secretary (Home)

Age:

Occupation :

Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

Itanagar.

5: The Director General of Police

Age:

Occupation :

PHQ

Govt of Arunachal Pradesh

Itanagar.

6: The Commandant

Age:

Occupation :

1st APP Bn Govt of Arunachal Pradesh BHQ Chimpu Itanagar VERSUS Bulang Marik Son of Late Bulang Mangha, resident of Papu Nallah, near Hormin Hospital, Jullang Road, PO and PS Papu Hill, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

:::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG For the Appellant(s) :Mr. N. Ratan, AAG For the Respondent : Mr. M. Kato Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment: 04.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

04.12.2025 (N. Sailo, J.)

Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, A.P. for the appellants and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the sole respondent/writ petitioner.

2. This is an intra-court appeal preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 195(AP)/2025, by which, the order of extension of the suspension of the respondent/writ petitioner (hereafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience) vide order dated 02.06.2024 was set aside.

3. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, A.P.,at the outset submits that the limited issue involved in the instant writ appeal is the validity or otherwise of an order extending the suspension period after a period of 90 days when the suspension was reviewed before the expiry of 90 days. He submits that the same has to be answered in the affirmative since review was done within 90 days. He submits that there is also no restriction under the provisions of CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965 (Rules of 1965). He submits that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of an earlier judgment of a Single Judge in Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India& Ors, reported in 2025(3) GLT 485, had interfered with the extension of the respondent on the ground that the same was passed after a lapse of 90 days. He submits that the learned Single Judge in Santosh Kumar(Supra) had misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors Vs. Dipak Mali, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 222. Referring to the said decision, learned Additional Advocate General submits that according to the Apex Court, review of the suspension period has to be done within 90 days and the Apex Court did not stipulate that such an extension was to be done by passing an order within 90 days. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Rule 10, (6) of the Rules of 1965, wherein the expression “before the expiry of 90 days from effective date of suspension” has been kept within a bracket and thereby, meaning that it is review alone which has to be done within 90 days. In other words, the same is not the prescription in case of the order to be passed after a review is done.He therefore, submits that the extension of the suspension of the respondent may have been done after the expiry of 90 days, but when the review itself has been done within a period of 90 days, the extension of the suspension has been rightly passed and should not have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

4. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the petitioner by filing his writ petition had challenged the initial susp