Nurul Alam vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Suman Shyam, J

Heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam as well as Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents.

The writ petitioner herein, while serving as Sub-Registrar, Abhayapuri in Bongaigaon District, was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.09.2024. A show cause notice containing the charges as well as the statement of allegations was thereafter served upon him on 03.01.2025 thus, initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted his show-cause reply on 29.01.2025. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is pending before the authority. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has neither reviewed nor extended the order dated 19.09.2024 within the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the order by furnishing proper reasons. As such, the order of suspension has lost its force in the eyes of law. The same is, accordingly, liable to be declared so by this Court.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the law laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Assam and another Vs. Ajit Sonowal and others reported in 2023 (6) GLT 115 has argued that the present is pre-eminently a fit case where the order of suspension deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service since there is no valid extension of the order of suspension. Mr. Rahman has also submitted that his client would face the departmental proceeding by rendering all cooperation, even if he is reinstated. Therefore, there is no necessity for the authorities to keep him under suspension for any further period.

In terms of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by this Court, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department, Assam has obtained written instruction dated 18.06.2025 and placed the same before the Court. As per the instructions obtained by Mr. Dutta it appears that the departmental authorities have given an assurance that they would conclude the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner within three months.

By referring to and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation Vs. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat and another reported in 2022 O AIR (SC) 1618 Mr. Dutta has argued that when charge-sheet is submitted against the delinquent, the necessity of continuance of the order of suspension would have to be assessed on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and to that extent, the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Ajit Sonowal and others (supra) would not be of any assistance to the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record.

It is no doubt correct that the authorities have not reviewed and/or passed any specific order of extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of issuance of the order dated 19.09.2024. However, it is also equally true that on 03.01.2024 itself, a memorandum of charges was served upon the petitioner thus signaling the initiation of the authorities to initiate departmental proceeding against him. Therefore, it is not a case where the departmental authorities had continued with the order of suspension without having any real intention of proceeding against the petitioner with regard to the charges sought to be pressed against him.

A careful analysis of the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Ajit Sonowal and others (supra) goes to show that in those two cases the Court was primarily concerned with the instances of prolonged suspension of the employees without periodically reviewing the order of suspension or initiating any disciplinary proceeding. The directions and observations of the Court appears to be one aimed at deprecating the practice on the part of the departments to keep the delinquent officers under prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding against them. Such a practice not only causes prejudice to the interest of the employee but also deprives the department of the benefit of service of the said employee for a prolong period.

Whether an order of suspension can be interfered with merely because the period of 90 days has expired before a review was conducted in respect thereof even when charge memo had been served upon the employee, is a mater which would undoubtedly depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula, in respect thereof, can be laid down. However, the decisions rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Ajit Sonowal and others (supra), in the prima-facie opinion of this Court, do not lay down a universal proposition of law that, even in cases where charge-sheet is submitted, the order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of 90 days, under any circumstance, without a proper review. Therefore, the matter would require further examination.

At this stage, Mr. Rahman has submitted that he would have no objection if the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of motion hearing by directing the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated against his client within three months. The learned departmental counsel has also agreed to such an order.

In view of the above, without delving any further on the contentious issues involved in this proceeding, the present writ petition is being disposed of by providing that within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the departmental proceeding so initiated against the petitioner, shall be brought to its logical conclusion by passing a final order as may be permissible under the law. If the authorities fail to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months, as directed herein above, the petitioner would be entitled to seek reinstatement in service on the expiry of the period of three months.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.