Abdur Rousan vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010218102026

2026:GAU-AS:16675
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5462/2026
Abdur Rousan, Son of Makram Ali, Resident of
Village Madhumara, P.O. Rakeshnagar, P.S. and
District Sribhumi, Assam, Pin 788701
……………… Petitioner

- Versus -

1. The State of Assam, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of Assam, School
Education (Elementary) Department, Dispur,
Guwahati-06
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Assam, Kahilipara Guwahati -19.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Sribhumi. P.O., P.S. And District- Sribhumi.
4. The Block Elementary Education Officer,
South Sribhumi Education Block, Sribhumi, P.O., P.S.
And District- Sribhumi .

……………… Respondents .

Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY


Advocates :

Petitioner : Mr. R.A. Mazumder, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. P.K. Bora, Standing Counsel,
Elementary Education Department.
Date on which judgment is reserved : N.A.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced ? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed an Order of Suspension dated 07.11.2025 passed by the
respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioner, who was serving a Head Teacher of
432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary School, District – Sribhumi, has been placed
under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of disciplinary
proceedings.

2. The petitioner was serving as the Head Teacher of 432 No. Harikuri
Lower Primary School, District – Sribhumi during the year 2025. On 15.05.2025,
the respondent no. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner asking for his appearance

Page No.# 3/10
in the office of the respondent no. 4 for a hearing scheduled on 16.05.2025
after School hours along with the records mentioned therein. It was mentioned
that the appearance was necessitated in view of receipt of a complaint lodged
by a number of persons on 14.05.2025 regarding misuse of mid-day meal and
improper utilization of development funds at 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary
School. Subsequent to the hearing, the respondent no. 4 submitted a Report
before the respondent no. 3 on 22.05.2025 stating inter alia that the petitioner
was found negligent in discharging his duties and on a visit by him to the school
on 16.05.2025, the petitioner was found absent in the school though he had put
his online attendance in the Siksha Setu Portal. The Report further mentioned
that a group of guardians of the students of the School lodged complaint before
the District Commissioner, Sribhumi regarding irregularities committed by the
petitioner. Thereafter, by an Order dated 29.05.2025, the respondent no. 3
ordered that the petitioner would impart lesson to the students of 1271 No.
Purba Bazarbond Lower Primary School within the same Education Block with
immediate effect. For that purpose, the petitioner was directed to hand over the
charge of Head Teacher cum Member Secretary of School Management
Committee [SMC] of 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary School to the senior most
Assistant Teacher of the said School. The Order dated 29.05.2025 further
mentioned that the monthly salary of the petitioner would be drawn from his
original place of posting on receipt of duty certificate.

3. It transpires that a further hearing took place before the Branch Officer
[Education] cum Assistant Commissioner at the office of the District
Commissioner, Sribhumi on 23.06.2025. On the basis of the decision taken after
the hearing, the respondent no. 5 again by a notice dated 19.06.2025 asked for

Page No.# 4/10
appearance of the petitioner before the Branch Officer [Education] cum
Assistant Commissioner, O/o the District Commissioner, Sribhumi on 23.06.2025
with records mentioned therein. Subsequently, in view of an Order dated
03.07.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner was allowed to be
reverted back as the Head Teacher of 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary School.
On 11.07.2025, the Branch Officer [Education] cum Assistant Commissioner, O/o
the District Commissioner, Sribhumi issued a notice to the petitioner and the
President of the SMC of 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary School, Sribhumi for
their appearance before him on 15.07.2025 for a enquiry into a complaint
regarding non-payment of wages to cook of 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary
School and stoppage of cooking in the said school.

4. In the above backdrop, the Order of Suspension came to be issued by
the respondent no. 2. From the Order of Suspension, it is noticed that the
respondent no. 2 had received an Enquiry Report dated 03.11.2025 from the
District Commissioner, Sribhumi stating inter alia that the petitioner as the Head
Teacher of 432 No. Harikuri Lower Primary School had failed in the
administrative front and was found negligent to verify the eligibility and
presence of the cook-cum-helper, in updating personnel and bank records; and
in informing the higher authorities about the crucial changes, etc. The Order
further mentioned that in view of the gravity of allegations, the petitioner had
been placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of
disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was allowed to draw subsistence
allowance as admissible under the Assam Services [Discipline and Appeal]
Rules, 1964 [‘the 1964 Rules’, for short] during the suspension period. It was
ordered that the petitioner should not leave the headquarter during suspension

Page No.# 5/10
period without prior permission from the higher authority and he was not to
engage himself in any profession or trade during the suspension period.

5. Heard Mr. R.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.
Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department.

6. Mr. Mazumder has submitted that the petitioner was placed under
suspension by the Order dated 07.11.2025. The respondent authorities, that is,
the disciplinary authority failed to serve the Memorandum of Charges within a
period of three months from the Order of Suspension dated 07.11.2025. The
disciplinary authority did not also review the case for extending the period of
suspension within a period of three months. Therefore, the suspension of the
petitioner beyond a period of three months from 07.11.2025 is to be adjudged
as invalid and unauthorized.

7. Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department
appearing for the State respondents has submitted, on instruction, that initially,
the petitioner raised an objection regarding non-payment of subsistence
allowance at the enhanced rate. In so far as the said grievance of the petitioner
is concerned, he has submitted that the petitioner was paid the subsistence
allowance at the rate of 50% up to September, 2026. Subsequently, a bill for
subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate of 75% for the month of October,
2026 was submitted to the Treasury and finally, the amount towards enhanced
subsistence allowance was disbursed to the petitioner. As regards the drawal of
disciplinary proceedings, Mr. Bora has submitted that a Show Cause Notice
under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India

Page No.# 6/10
has already been issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner on
14.10.2026 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why any of the penalties
prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be inflicted upon him for the
charges mentioned therein, based on the Statement of Allegations attached
therewith. He has fairly submitted that the Memorandum of Charges was not
issued to the petitioner within a period of three months from 07.11.2025. He
has also submitted on the basis of instructions received that no review could be
done within the period of three months from 07.11.2025. Mr. Bora has referred
to the written instructions received by him from the office of the Elementary
Education, Assam vide Office Letter bearing no. E.718623/100 dated
05.11.2026.

8. The petitioner is a government employee and therefore, in matters of
suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the provisions of the
Assam Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1964 are made applicable.

9. The power to place a Government servant under suspension has been
provided in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1964. For the purpose of the case in hand, Rule
6 of the Rules, 1964 is quoted below for ready reference :-
[1] The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other
authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government
servant under suspension –
[a] Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending;
or
[b] Where is the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in
activities prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or

Page No.# 7/10
[c] Where a case against him in respect any criminal offence is under
investigation, inquiry or trial;
Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than
the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing
Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.
[2] A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge
or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have
been suspended with effect from the date of such detention, by an order of the
Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders.
Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not
connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is
not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the
discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the
Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have
been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or
imprisonment.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs.
Union of India, [2015] 7 SCC 291 , more particularly, in paragraph 21 has laid
down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond
three months if within the said period of three months, the memorandum of
charge / charge-sheet is not served. In order to extend the suspension period
beyond the period of three months, a reasoned order must be passed for
extension of the suspension period. It has been further held that if the
memorandum of charges / charge-sheet is served within the period of three
months, then also a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the

Page No.# 8/10
suspension period.

11. From a plain reading of the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary
[supra], it is discernible that the law so laid down is in two parts. The first
situation envisaged is where a disciplinary proceeding has not been initiated
against the delinquent officer / employee within a period of three months from
the date such officer / employee was placed under suspension. In such
situation, it has been laid down that the currency of the suspension period shall
not extend beyond three months, if within the initial period of three months, the
memorandum of charges / charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent
officer / employee and no reasoned order is passed extending the period of
suspension.

12. The second situation envisaged in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra]
contains a mandate that even in the event the memorandum of charges /
charge sheet is issued and served upon the delinquent officer / employee within
a period of three months from the date of suspension even, then also, a
reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period beyond
the initial period of three months.

13. It is also settled that for extending the currency of an order, the order for
extension has to be passed during the currency of the said order. Therefore, an
order for extending the period of suspension is not to be passed after the
suspension period is over. The period of three months from 07.11.2025 expired
in 07.02.2026. The authority who had passed the Order of Suspension, ought to
have passed a reasoned order within a period of three months from 07.11.2025

Page No.# 9/10
to extend the period of suspension. But no reasoned order by way of review
was admittedly passed within a period of thee months from 07.11.2025. The
Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.10.2026, which was also beyond a period
of three months from 07.11.2025. Thus, it is clear that no review was done
within a period of three months from 07.11.2025.

14. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned,
this Court finds that a right has accrued to the petitioner for seeking a direction
for reinstatement on account of the failure on the part of the competent
authority to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from
07.11.2025. Therefore, the period of suspension beyond a period of three
months from 07.11.2025 is found to be invalid in view of the law declared in the
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra]. Any review even if carried out
subsequently for extending the currency of the suspension period pursuant after
expiry of a period of three months from 07.11.2025 would be of no
consequence. The Court is of the clear view that the Order of Suspension dated
07.11.2025 has lost its force on or after 07.02.2025 and accordingly, the same
cannot be said to be in currency any further. Consequently, the petitioner is
required to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, it is directed that the
respondent authorities shall reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of
fifteen days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the
petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2.

15. It is observed that above direction for reinstatement of the petitioner
would not come in the way of the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with
the disciplinary proceedings initiated by issuance of the Show Cause Notice

Page No.# 10/10
dated 14.10.2026. The Disciplinary Authority while finalizing the disciplinary
proceedings, shall also take a final decision as regards entitlement of the
petitioner for pay and allowance during the suspension period.

16. If the Disciplinary Authority finds that the continuation of the petitioner at
the present place of posting would not be in the best interest of administration
and the petitioner is required to be kept out of the range of mischief, it is
observed, following the observations made in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra]
in paragraph 21, that the respondent authorities will be at liberty to transfer the
petitioner to a place so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may like to misuse for obstructing the disciplinary
proceedings against him. In other words, the respondent authorities are to
reinstate the petitioner and thereafter, are also at liberty to transfer him to a
place to keep him out of mischief’s range following due procedure of law.

17. With the observations made and the directions given, the writ petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Pallabi
Das
Digitally signed by Pallabi Das
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781003,
l=Kamrup, st=Assam, street=H/no113 ,
Silpukhuri, GMC Assam India 781003 Near
Bank of india, title=7618,
2.5.4.20=01b493500a5bb45e0570c54eeae9e
a4b67074cdaf44d001cf5b9dc43827e13ee,
serialNumber=48f77e54522021039f8396a31
b5bc8bb8ae8a996b28b54ec23937ab401404
6e1, [email protected],
cn=Pallabi Das
Date: 2026.11.12 18:25:32 +05'30'