GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SAUMYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, March 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 30:

1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. A. Garg, District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar is also present through video conferencing pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 28.01.2026.

2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of suspension dated 20/22.12.2025 primarily on the ground that the petitioner was earlier suspended upon being arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 47/2024, in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, "the Rules of 1964"). It is the further case of the petitioner that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 26.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 659/2025 had set aside the said suspension on the ground that it was in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as in Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2023 (3) GLT 718. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the basis of the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 659/2025, the petitioner was reinstated vide an order dated 09.06.2025. However, all of a sudden on 20/22.12.2025 the petitioner was again placed under suspension.

3. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Authorities having already suspended the petitioner earlier and the said suspension having been set aside, could not again suspend the petitioner in terms with Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 1964. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned order of suspension dated 20/22.12.2025 amounts to overreaching the orders passed by this Court whereby the earlier suspension order was set aside.

4. Per Contra, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that the impugned suspension order has been passed in terms with Rule 6(1) (c) of the Rules of 1964, whereas the petitioner was earlier suspended in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1964 on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. The learned Senior Government Advocate further submitted that in the meantime circumstances have changed inasmuch as the Memorandum of Charge has already been submitted and disciplinary proceedings are underway. Additionally, the related police case is under investigation/trial as indicated by the grant of prosecution sanction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv9wgtSaG3j4WD6D8NWMx4ic6bZ6Hd3WMLrXt%2Bj3KKdKm&caseno=WP(C)/195/2026&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010000832026&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.