Mridu Paban Nath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

¶1

GAHC010229002024

¶2

2025:GAU-AS:15249

¶3

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

WP(C) NO. 5645 OF 2024

¶5

Dr. Mridu Paban Nath S/o- Lt. Mina Ram Nath, R/o- Flat No- 3C, D, Manisha High Opp. Pantaloons, G.S. Road, P.S.- Dispur, DistKamrup (M), Assam, PIN- 781022.

¶6

…….Petitioner

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati781006.

¶9

2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Medical Education & Research Department, Dispur, Guwahati781006.

¶10

……. Respondents

¶11

– B E F O R E –

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. H. Saikia, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Additional Advocate General, Assam.

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

Date on which judgment

¶17

is reserved : N/A

¶18

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.11.2025

¶19

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No.

¶20

Whether the full judgment

¶21

has been pronounced : Yes.

¶22

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents.

¶24

2] By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is seeking the setting aside and quashing of the impugned notification whereby the writ petitioner on 28.06.2024 was placed under suspension by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Medical Education and Research Department.

¶25

3] The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28.06.2024 for the alleged grounds of unauthorized absence from duties since 01.05.2024 with a further allegation of joining Hayat Superspeciality Hospital as CEO. Thereafter the charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations was served upon the writ petitioner on 18.07.2024. Accordingly,

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

the writ petitioner submitted its reply. Thereafter, on 23.08.2024, the writ petitioner was further served with an additional charge-sheet. Thereafter, the suspension of the writ petitioner was reviewed on 07.01.2025, and upon such review the suspension was further extended until further orders. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that thereafter the respondents have been arbitrarily continuing the suspension despite the expiry of 3 months since the date of the first review and extension. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

4] Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that though the charges were furnished to the writ petitioner within the currency of the stipulated suspension period of 90 days, and the review of the suspension and extension thereof was also done within 6 months from the date of the issuance of the first chargesheet, the second review/extension was carried out during the pendency of the writ petition after almost 9 months from the first review in complete violation of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. The Union of India & Ors ., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further submits that the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 clearly prescribes a quarterly review of suspension, Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet served upon the delinquent officer/employee every 3 months of the last 3 months of the suspension order for further necessary action. He accordingly emphasizes that it was imperative for the respondent to review the suspension of the writ petitioner

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

every 3 months since the first review, i.e., within 6 months from the date of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet.

¶31

5] Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 is silent as regards any subsequent review to be undertaken after holding the first review within 6 months from the date of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet. He further submits that in the instant case, since the respondent has already reviewed the suspension of the writ petitioner and extended the suspension on 26.09.2025 in strict compliance with the timeframe stipulated in the said Office Memorandum, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference whatsoever.

¶32

6] Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the contending parties and having perused the material available on record, including the case laws cited at the bar, it appears that pursuant to the directions of this court by the judgment & order dated 30.11.2017 in a series of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) No. 6465/2017, the State Government issued the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 reiterating the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) . The said Office Memorandum directs that: -

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

(i) The Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet must be served upon the officer within 3 months from the date of the order of suspension,

¶35

(ii) The currency of the suspension order shall not extend beyond 3 months unless the charge-sheet has been served and a reasoned order for its continuation is passed,

¶36

(iii) After the issuance of the charge-sheet, the competent authority must undertake a review within 6 months regarding the desirability of further continuation of the suspension,

¶37

(iv) The senior-most secretaries or the respective appointing authorities shall be personally responsible for ensuring timely issuance of charge-sheet and periodical review of suspension orders,

¶38

(v) The Personnel department shall conduct a quarterly review every 3 months on the status of suspension cases received from all the departments.

¶39

7] In the present case, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension, and a Memorandum of Charges was issued within a period of 3 months from the date of such suspension. The first review of the suspension was also carried out within 6 months thereafter, thereby fulfilling the procedural requirements laid down in the said Office Memorandum. It is not in dispute, however, that the second review of the order was undertaken only after a lapse of about 9 months and 19 days from the date of the first review. While the said Office Memorandum does not expressly stipulate any definite

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

timeframe for conducting reviews beyond the first, its concluding paragraph clearly directs that the Personnel Department shall compile and place before the Chief Secretary a periodical review every 3 months regarding the suspension cases in various departments. This reflects the administrative intent to ensure continuous and timely scrutiny of suspension orders, in conformity with the spirit of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) , which mandates that an order of suspension should not be allowed to continue indefinitely without periodic and reasoned justification.

¶42

8] Nevertheless, it is admitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the competent authority has undertaken the second review by passing a reasoned order on 26.09.2025 (Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2) and extended the suspension. Once such a review has been made on record by the disciplinary authority, the scope for judicial interference becomes limited in view of paragraph 22 of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) , which recognizes that the continuation of suspension may be permissible where justified by reasoned consideration of the relevant circumstances. Paragraph 22 of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) reads as under: -

¶43

“22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law,

¶44

Page 6 of 8

¶45

and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.”

¶46

9] In view of the above discussions, and since the subsequent review of the writ petitioner’s suspension has now been carried out by a reasoned order in compliance with the directions contained in the said Office Memorandum, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the subsisting order of suspension at this stage.

¶47

10] However, the State respondents and all disciplinary authorities are hereby directed to strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards and timelines prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, particularly the requirement of undertaking periodical review of suspension every 3 months, so as to maintain conformity with the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) . The respondent authorities shall ensure that such reviews are conducted regularly, and that any continuation of suspension beyond the initial period is supported by a contemporaneous and reasoned order, thereby preventing unnecessary or prolonged suspension inconsistent with constitutional fairness.

¶48

11] Accordingly, it is directed that the State respondent shall scrupulously follow the instructions contained in the said Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 in all future cases to prevent recurrence of procedural delays and to maintain compliance with the principles of fairness and proportionality as enunciated in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra).

¶49

12] Needless to be clarified that the respondent authorities shall further ensure that the writ petitioner is paid

¶50

Page 7 of 8

¶51

subsistence allowance regularly during the period of suspension, as mandated under the applicable service rules and judicial pronouncement.

¶52

13] With the aforesaid observation and directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant