Anil Kumar Deuri Vs the State of Assam 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/15

¶2

GAHC010082992025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8128

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2273/2025

¶6

ANIL KUMAR DEURI

¶7

S/O. LT. NILAKANTA DEURI, R/O. BORTILA BORBARI, P/O. HENGRABARI, P/S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781036.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM 4 ORS.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TEA TRIBES AND ADIVASI WELFARE DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶11

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TEA TRIBES AND ADIVASI WELFARE DEPARTMENT

¶12

JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781006.

¶13

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TEA TRIBES AND ADIVASI WELFARE DEPARTMENT

¶14

JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781006. 4:THE DIRECTOR TEA TRIBES AND ADIVASI WELFARE RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-781032.

¶15

Page No.# 2/15

¶16

5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR TEA TRIBES AND ADIVASI WELFARE ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-78103

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : P KHATANIAR, MR S BORTHAKUR,MR SAURADEEP DEY

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 08.06.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P Kalita, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for all the Respondents.

¶23

2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to his prolonged suspension, occasioning after he was placed under suspension, vide issuance of an order dated 19.02.2025. The Petitioner has also assailed a show-cause notice

¶24

dated 26.12.2024, instituting against him, a departmental proceeding.

¶25

3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner, while working as a Superintendent in the Directorate of Tea Tribes and

¶26

Page No.# 3/15

¶27

Adivasi Welfare, Assam, a purchase of 2702 (Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Two) nos. of Smart Phones, came to be made in the Directorate. Out of the purchased Smart Phones, 2570 (Two thousand five hundred seventy) nos. of Smart Phones were distributed to Line Sardars of various tea gardens, during the year 2021, and the remaining 132 (One hundred thirty-two) nos. of were kept in the Directorate building for distribution, against the contractual staff of the Programme Management Unit of the Directorate. It is further projected that out of the 132 (One hundred thirty-two) nos. of Smart Phones, 35 (Thirty-five) nos. were kept in the almirah of the Director and the rest 97 (Ninety-seven), were kept in the 3^rd floor i.e. the Museum building of the Office.

¶28

4. An audit team from the Office of the Principal Accountant General, Assam, had carried out an audit in the Directorate, w.e.f 24.08.2024 to 10.10.2024. During the said audit, the audit team did not physically find the 97 (Ninety-seven) nos. of Smart Phones, kept in the 3^rd floor i.e. the Museum building. The fact of 97 (Ninety-seven) nos. of Smart Phones missing, coming to

¶29

Page No.# 4/15

¶30

the notice of the authorities, communications came to be issued, seeking explanation from the Petitioner, and it was projected, therein, that the missing 97 (Ninety-seven) Smart Phones, were kept under his custody. Subsequently, the Director of Tea Tribes and Adivasi Welfare, Assam, directed the Joint Director of the Directorate, to carry out an enquiry, with regard to the loss of 97 (Ninety-seven) Smart Phones, from the premises of the Directorate. On conclusion of the said enquiry, a report was submitted and therein, it was projected that the Petitioner, being the custodian of the missing Smart Phones, he is solely responsible for the same.

¶31

5. Accordingly, on 21.12.2024, an FIR was lodged before the Paltan Bazar Police Station, with regard to the loss of the 97 (Ninety-seven) nos. of Smart Phones from the premises of the Directorate. The said case was registered as Paltan Bazar P.S Case No. 465/2024, under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thereafter, it is projected in the Writ Petition, that a show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024, came to be issued to the Petitioner, seeking clarifications from him, with regard to the loss of the said Smart Phones. The Petitioner is found to have

¶32

Page No.# 5/15

¶33

submitted his clarifications in the matter. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was also enlarged on bail, by this Court, in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S Case No. 465/2024. The Petitioner was issued with a further show-cause notice on 07.01.2025, seeking a written explanation from the Petitioner for his absence from office on 3^rd , 4^th , 6^th and 7^th January, 2025, without prior permission/intimation. The Petitioner, in reply to the said showcause notice on 09.01.2025, submitted his clarification in the matter and had set-out the reasons, as to why, he had to remain absent from duty.

¶34

6. The police, on completion of investigation in Paltan Bazar P.S Case No. 465/2024, submitted a charge-sheet being chargesheet No. 33/2025, and therein, one Sri. Dhiren Tanti was arrayed as an accused. The charge-sheet, being filed, the Court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, had made-over the case to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, for trial. It is projected that the trial in the said case, is currently underway.

¶35

7. The Petitioner further projects that considering the

¶36

Page No.# 6/15

¶37

materials coming on record, in the charge-sheet, there was no occasion for the Respondent authorities to proceed against him, departmentally. It is in the above backdrop that the Petitioner, vide order dated 19.02.2025, issued by the Director of Tea Tribes and Adivasi Welfare, Assam, came to be placed under suspension. The order of suspension was projected to have not been reviewed and considering the prolonged suspension occasioning, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.

¶38

8. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the suspension of the Petitioner, occasioning, with the issuance of the order dated 19.02.2025, was so continued with, in clear violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . He submits that the Respondent authorities had also instituted a departmental proceeding, against him, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024. Accordingly, Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of

¶39

Page No.# 7/15

¶40

suspension, having been continued in violation of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) , the same would mandate an interference.

¶41

9. Having made the said submissions, Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the Affidavit-in-Reply, filed in the matter by the Petitioner, has submitted that the Respondent authorities, subsequently, have instituted a formal departmental proceeding against the Petitioner, vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the materials coming on record, in the charge-sheet filed by the Police, in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S Case No. 465/2024 and, therein, the Petitioner, not being implicated as an accused, the allegation now leveled against the Petitioner, in the show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025, would not be maintainable and the same would mandate an interference by this Court.

¶42

10. Per contra, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl.

¶43

Page No.# 8/15

¶44

Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent authorities, has submitted that the Petitioner being the custodian of the missing 97 (Ninety-seven) nos. of Smart Phones, he cannot deny his responsibility in the matter and there admittedly, being a loss of Government property, the institution of the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner, would not mandate an interference by this Court.

¶45

11. It is submitted that the Petitioner was suspended from his services, after a due enquiry in the matter, so conducted through a Joint Director of the Directorate and the same, having been brought on record, that the Petitioner, being the custodian of the missing Smart Phones, he is responsible for the loss. Accordingly, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, Learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, submits that the Petitioner’s suspension, in the light of the fact that a departmental proceeding has already been instituted against him, would not mandate an interference by this Court. She further prays that the Respondents be permitted to take the departmental proceeding, instituted against the Petitioner, to its logical conclusion.

¶46

Page No.# 9/15

¶47

12. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and

¶48

also perused the materials available on record.

¶49

13. At the outset, this Court would consider the challenge presented by the Petitioner to a show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024. The said show-cause notice has been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure G. The contents of the

¶50

said show-cause notice, being relevant, the same is extracted

¶51

hereinbelow :

¶52

“ Sub : Show Cause Notice.

¶53

This is with reference to the Audit Team report on physically missing of 97 nos. of smartphones kept in the Museum Hall at the 3rd Floor of this office building and it has come to the notice of the undersigned that the key of the lock of the Museum Hall is with you since 19-052021.

¶54

In response to the above, you were asked to submit a detailed statement vide letter ECF No. 334906 dated 30th September, 2024 being as a Custodian of the lock and key of the Museum Hall but you have failed to submit any positive clarification which is treated as insubordinations conduct from your side.

¶55

Therefore, you are asked to submit a written explanation of your conduct and provide a valid cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with article 311 of constitution of India. It should reach to the undersigned by 7 (seven) days from the received of this notice.”

¶56

14. A perusal of the said show-cause notice would

¶57

Page No.# 10/15

¶58

reveal that the Petitioner was directed to submit his clarifications, with regard to the loss of missing of 97 (Ninetyseven) nos. of Smart Phones, kept in the Museum Hall of the 3^rd floor of the office premises of the Directorate. It is further projected that the key of the lock of the Museum Hall was kept with the Petitioner since 19.05.2021. What is relevant to notice, with regard to the said show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024, is that the same only requires the Petitioner to submit an explanation, with regard to his conduct and to provide a valid case, as to why, disciplinary action should not be initiated against him, under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1964.

¶59

15. The above being the content of the show-cause notice, this Court is of the considered view that, vide the same, no departmental proceeding can be said to have been initiated against the Petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the challenge made by the Petitioner, to the said show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024, in the considered view of this Court, is on a misunderstanding of the matter and the said challenge would not be maintainable,

¶60

Page No.# 11/15

¶61

inasmuch as, this Court does not find a departmental proceeding, to have been initiated against the Petitioner, vide issuance of the said show-cause notice dated 26.12.2024.

¶62

16. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the order dated 19.02.2025, issued by the Director of Tea Tribes and Adivasi Welfare, Assam, placing the Petitioner under suspension. The Respondents projects that the order dated 19.02.2025, placing the Petitioner under suspension, was considered in the meeting of the Review Committee, held on 25.06.2025, and the suspension of the Petitioner was extended till 17.08.2025.

¶63

17. From the materials brought on record, it is revealed that there was no review of the necessity to continue to place the Petitioner under suspension, prior to the consideration so made by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 25.06.2025. The issue, with regard to prolonged continuance of an order of suspension was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) .

¶64

18. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶65

Page No.# 12/15

¶66

Court in Paragraph 21 of the said decision, being relevant to the

¶67

show-cause notice in the present Writ Petition, the same is extracted hereinbelow :

¶68

“ 21. We, therefore, direct 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/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set timelimits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”

¶69

19. A perusal of the conditions of Paragraph 21 of the

¶70

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay

¶71

Kumar Choudhary (Supra) , would reveal that an order of

¶72

Page No.# 13/15

¶73

suspension would remain in currency only for a period of 3 (Three) months, from the date of issuance of the same, in the event, no show-cause notice, instituting a departmental proceeding against the delinquent, was so issued. It further stipulates that in the event a departmental proceeding is so instituted, within the period of 3 (Three) months from the date of issue of the order of suspension, the Respondents authorities are to pass an order, after reviewing the necessity for continuing the delinquent under suspension.

¶74

20. This Court finds that the Respondent authorities had issued the show-cause notice to the Petitioner, instituting a departmental proceeding against him, only on 24.06.2025. The said show-cause notice, admittedly, was issued beyond the period of 3 (Three) months, mandated for continuance of an order of suspension, prior to institution of a departmental proceeding, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) . The departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, admittedly, having been instituted after a lapse for more than 3 (Three) months, from the date of issuance of the order of suspension of

¶75

Page No.# 14/15

¶76

the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the order of suspension of the Petitioner had lost its force and accordingly, cannot be held to be subsisting, as on date. The Petitioner, consequently, would be entitled to be reinstated in his services. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in his services, forthwith.

¶77

21. The orders towards reinstatement of the Petitioner in his services, be issued by the Director of Tea Tribes and Adivasi Welfare, Assam, immediately, on receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶78

22. This Court would now consider the prayer of the Learned Senior Counsel, for an examination of the show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025, issued to the Petitioner, instituting a departmental proceeding against him. This Court finds that the said show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025, was so issued after the instant Writ Petition was so filed before this Court, on 11.04.2025. The show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025, is not found to have been assailed by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Court would not proceed to examine

¶79

Page No.# 15/15

¶80

the validity of the show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025, in the

¶81

present Writ Petition. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings, if so advised, to assail the said show-cause notice dated 24.06.2025.

¶82

22. With the above observations and directions, the

¶83

present Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶84

JUDGE

¶85

Comparing Assistant

Anil Kumar Deuri v. the State of Assam 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Deuri v. the State of Assam 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratul Sarmah Vs Paban Terang and 5 Ors.

Ismail Hussen Mondal Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Shanti Indane Service Vs Devashish Sharma

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rabin Ch Roy and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Siemngul Hmar and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.