GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 10 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 11:
1. 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.
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.
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, 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.
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 every 3 months since the first review, i.e., within 6 months from the date of issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet.
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.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqMVs3aNWMeZEsuvY8lphHMaQrrGlcHiDOO14bqikEf5m&caseno=WP(C)/5645/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010229002024&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
