Dismissed

Shri Mintu Deka v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026WP(C)/3160/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stenographer in the Assam Legislative Assembly was arrested and placed under deemed suspension on 16-06-2025. He was enlarged on bail on 18-08-2025 but did not inform his department. A charge-sheet was filed in the criminal case on 29-11-2025. The department learned of the bail only on 18-06-2026 and issued a show-cause notice and extended suspension on 11-09-2026. The court held that under Ajay Kr. Choudhary and Rafed Ali Ahmed, the 90-day period for deemed suspension runs from the date the department receives intimation of bail, and since the charge-sheet was filed within 90 days of bail and departmental proceedings were initiated within 90 days of intimation, the suspension was valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; suspension upheld; no order as to costs.

Shri Mintu Deka Vs the State of Assam and Othrs — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010119302026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3160/2026

¶6

SHRI MINTU DEKA

¶7

S/O -SHRI DWIJENDRA NATH DEKA, R/O VILL-BAREGAON, P/O-KARARA, P/S-BAIHATA CHARIALI, PIN-781381

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GHY- 781006

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY 781006

¶11

3:JOINT SECRETARY ESTT ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY 781006

¶12

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GHY 78100

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P SONOWAL, MR D MEDHI,MR P R SARMA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE

¶15

Page No.# 2/9

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 18-09-2026

¶19

Heard Mr. P.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, Assam.

¶20

The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the prolonged suspension occasioning in his case after he was placed under suspension vide order dated 16-06-2025, w.e.f. 14-06-2025.

¶21

The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under:-

¶22

3.1. The petitioner who was appointed as a Stenographer Gr-III in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Guwahati, came to be arrested on 14-06-2025, in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025, registered under Section 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 304(2)/ 61(2) BNS, 2023, basing on an FIR lodged in the matter by one Mamoni Kalita, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner had collected money from her and others by promising to give them jobs at the Assam Secretariat. The petitioner having been arrested, in connection with the said case and he having remained under detention for more than 48 hours, the petitioner, was vide an order dated 16-06-2025, placed under

¶23

Page No.# 3/9

¶24

suspension, w.e.f. 14-06-2025. The petitioner was, thereafter, vide an order dated 18-082025, passed by this Court in B.A. No. 2550/2025, enlarged on bail in connection with the Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025. The Investigating Agency, thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025, laid the charge-sheet in the matter, on 29-11-2025. The suspension of the petitioner being prolonged, the petitioner had instituted the present writ petition praying for his reinstatement in service.

¶25

Mr. P.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the petitioner was placed under suspension, w.e.f. 14-06-2025, no departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner and accordingly, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary Vs. UoI reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , on conclusion of 90 days from the date he was so placed under suspension, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in his service. Mr. Sarma has further submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) would also stand attracted in cases, wherein, delinquent has been placed under deem suspension. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submits that the respondents not having instituted a departmental proceeding within a period of 90 days, the suspension ordered in respect of the petitioner, cannot be held to be in currency any further.

¶26

4.1. Mr. Sarma by referring to an objection raised by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in the affidavit filed by them that the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court was not brought to their notice has submitted that it is immaterial that such information is to be given by the delinquent and the order of suspension would always relate back to the date on which it was issued and the period of 90 days, during which it can remain in

¶27

Page No.# 4/9

¶28

currency has to be computed from the date of issuance of the order of suspension and not from any date subsequent, thereto. Mr. Sarma, in support of his submissions has relied upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Bulbul Choudhury Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (judgment and order dated 21-01-2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3204/2024 ). In the above premises, Mr. Sarma submits that the order of suspension of the petitioner is to be held to be no longer in currency and directions be issued to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner in his services.

¶29

Per contra, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail had come to the notice of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, only on receipt of notice of the present proceeding by them, on 18-06-2026. He submits that prior, thereto, the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail was not known to the said respondents. Mr. Choudhury by referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (judgment and order dated 17-02-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 455/2023 ) has submitted that the period during which an order of deemed suspension would remain in currency has been held by this Court, in the said case, to be so construed from the date the intimation given by the delinquent, of he being enlarged on bail by a competent court of law. Mr. Choudhury submits that the petitioner had not submitted any intimation with regard to the fact that he was enlarged on bail by this Court. Accordingly, Mr. Choudhury, submits that the period of 90 days during which the order of suspension of the petitioner would remain in currency would now have to be so reckoned from 18-062026. Mr. Choudhury submits that in view of the said position, during currency of the

¶30

Page No.# 5/9

¶31

suspension order of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have instituted a departmental proceeding against him vide issuance of a show-cause notice dated 11-092026. Mr. Choudhury submits that along with the issuance of the said show-cause notice, an order dated 11-09-2026, was also issued to the petitioner, wherein, on a review of the necessity to place him under suspension, after institution of a departmental proceeding against him was considered and it being found that he is required to be kept under suspension, the period of suspension of the petitioner was further extended for 03 (three) months, w.e.f. 13-09-2026.

¶32

5.1. In the above premises, Mr. Choudhury submits that the respondents having acted in the matter strictly in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rafed Ali Ahmed (Supra) , the order of suspension of the petitioner, would not mandate interference from this Court.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

After the petitioner was placed under arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 16-06-2025. The petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18-08-2025 passed in B.A. No. 2550/2025. The petitioner, however, not intimated the fact that he was enlarged on bail to the respondent authorities. Another factor, which would be required to be noticed by this Court is that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 18-08-2025, the Investigating Agency had filed a charge-sheet in Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025.

¶35

Page No.# 6/9

¶36

Accordingly, it is found that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 18-08-2025, a charge-sheet against him was laid in the criminal proceeding pending against him on 2911-2025, i.e. within a period of 90 days from the date the petitioner was so enlarged on bail.

¶37

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) in paragraph 21 had drawn the following conclusions:-

¶38

“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 recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits 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.”

¶39

The charge-sheet having been laid in the matter in the criminal proceeding

¶40

pending against the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18-08-2025, this Court finds that the condition as set out in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr.

¶41

Choudhary (Supra) was satisfied, insofar as, the petitioner is concerned and

¶42

Page No.# 7/9

¶43

accordingly, the continuation of the petitioner under suspension cannot be held to be erroneous.

¶44

Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the contentions of the petitioner that no departmental proceeding having been instituted against the petitioner, within a period of 90 days from the date he was placed under suspension, the currency of the order of suspension issued to the petitioner could not have been held to be subsisting after the lapse of 90 days from the date of issuance of the same. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected, inasmuch as, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rafed Ali Ahmed (Supra) , insofar as, it concerns a case of a delinquent placed under deemed suspension had already held that the currency of the suspension would have to be so reckoned from the date a delinquent on being enlarged on bail, communicates the same to his Disciplinary Authority and/ or his superior authority. This Court has found that the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 18-08-2025, however, he had not communicated the same to the Departmental Authorities and the Departmental Authorities had come to learn about the fact of the petitioner being enlarged on bail only on receipt of the notice of the present writ petition on 18-06-2026. Accordingly, in view of the conclusions drawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafed Ali Ahmed (Supra) , which this Court is in respectful agreement, the currency of the suspension affected in respect of the petitioner would be now reckoned only w.e.f. 18-06-2026, i.e. the date on which the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, had received the information about the petitioner being enlarged on bail. This Court finds that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had instituted a departmental proceeding against the petitioner,

¶45

Page No.# 8/9

¶46

vide issuance of show-cause notice dated 11-09-2026. Along with the said show-cause notice, an order was also issued on the same day, extending the period of suspension of the petitioner. This Court finds that the institution of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide issuance of the show-cause notice dated 11-09-2026, on the facts and circumstances of the present matter, had so occasioned within the period the suspension of the petitioner is to be held to be in currency. Accordingly, this Court finds that the respondent authorities have complied with the directions contained in paragraph 21 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) .

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner had in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Md. Bulbul Choudhury (Supra) . On a perusal of the said decision, this Court finds that the said decision, is distinguishable on fact and accordingly, it is held that the said decision would not advance the case of the petitioner.

¶48

In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the suspension of the petitioner, continues to remain in currency, inasmuch as, the requisite steps mandated for keeping the petitioner under continuous suspension has been taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, the prayer made in the present writ petition for interference with the order of suspension would not mandate acceptance from this Court.

¶49

Accordingly, in view of the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶50

Page No.# 9/9

¶51