Paresh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

2. The petitioner is before this Court was serving as Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and posted at Mangaldai. The petitioner was arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024 on 03.12.2024. Thereafter on 22.12.2024, the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 03.12.2024 until further order. This period of suspension was subsequently extended by the Authorities from time to time. The petitioner was released on bail on 23.12.2024. The petitioner submitted representation before the authorities; however, the said representation remains pending and no orders has been passed either reinstating the petitioner back in service or giving reasons for the continued extension of the suspension period.

¶21

3. The petitioner’s last representation was preferred before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Cooperation Department on 06.09.2025, which was received on 24.09.2025. Copy of the same is enclosed as ‘Annexure-U’ to the present writ petition.

¶22

4. The petitioner is aggrieved that his prayer has not been considered in spite of representation submitted by him. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service.

¶23

5. According to Mr. A. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will superannuate on 30.11.2026. Under such circumstances the petitioner is aggrieved that no steps have been taken to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

6. The learned counsel further submits that show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2025 by the Department to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.08.2025 and the same was received on 27.08.2025. Thereafter, no further steps have been taken by the Authorities to intimate the petitioner as to whether his reply and explanation in respect of the charges have been accepted or whether the authorities are contemplating to proceed with departmental proceedings.

¶26

7. Although by the earlier order dated 18.02.2026 and 02.03.2026 liberty was granted to the learned respondent appearing for the Cooperation Department to obtain instructions in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner did not inform the department about his release from custody, the period of three months, as laid down in the judgment “Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 will be given effect to only upon a communication being issued by the petitioner informing the Department of the date of his release. This is what is laid down by coordinate bench of this court in “Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam and 3 Ors.” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 547 .

¶27

8. Be that as it may, since there is no dispute that the proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner are undertaken under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Under Rule 14, there is a specific provision for appeal against the order of suspension. Although several representation have been filed by the writ petitioner and the same were not seemed to be disposed of by the concerned authorities and the learned Standing Counsel of the Cooperation Department also does not have any instructions to that effect as to why their representation are not disposed of, this Court considers it appropriate that since the last representation submitted by the writ petitioner dated 06.09.2025 is still

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

pending and which representation is seem to have been received on 24.09.2025 as per the endorsement reflected in the body of the representation, this court considers it appropriate for the ends of justice to direct the concerned authorities to treat this representation as an appeal under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1964.

¶30

9. The concerned authorities namely the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Cooperation Department will pass necessary orders in respect of the grievances raised by the writ petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

10. While the Secretary considers the matter as directed by this Court, any information felt necessary from the writ petitioner can be procured by issuing notice to the petitioner, if so required.

¶32

11. The authority before whom the representation has been filed is the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Cooperation Department (Respondent No.4). If the concerned authorities appears that it is not the appellate authority and is required to be referred to a higher authority namely the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, Cooperation Department, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the same shall be forthwith transmitted to the Principal Secretary for passing appropriate order within the time frame specified by this Court.

¶33

12. With the above observations, without expressing anything on merit, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

13. No order as to cost.

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Paresh Kumar Sahu v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Kumar Sahu v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Ranjumala Devi Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Alok Shankar Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Bhupen Kakati and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Marzina Begum Vs Minu Brahma

Satish Malakar and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Abdul Wahab Vs J. B. Ekka and 5 Ors.