A suspension review conducted after the mandatory 90-day period cannot extend the suspension.

The petitioner, a Divisional Forest Officer, was arrested on 19 May 2026 in connection with an ACB case and was placed under suspension by an order dated 21 May 2026, stated to take effect from 19 May 2026 pending the drawing up of departmental proceedings.

After being granted bail, he sought reinstatement. A Review Committee considered the suspension on 18 August 2026 and recommended its extension, citing the nascent stage of the investigation. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing that the review occurred after the prescribed 90-day period.

1. Whether the suspension review conducted on 18 August 2026, after the 90-day period had expired, could lawfully extend the petitioner’s suspension.

2. Whether the suspension order should be set aside and the petitioner reinstated, subject to any appropriate posting conditions.

The Court treated the 90-day periodic-review requirement for suspension as mandatory, relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and the Division Bench decision in Rakibuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) 2 GLR 621.

Rakibuddin Ahmed also applied the review requirement to deemed suspensions under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964; however, the Court noted that the present suspension was expressly ordered pending departmental proceedings, so the deemed-suspension issue did not arise.

The suspension was given effect from 19 May 2026. The Court calculated that the 90-day period expired on 17 August 2026, whereas the Review Committee acted on 18 August—the 91st day.

Because the review was not conducted within the mandatory period, the Court held that it could not legally extend the suspension.

Given the nature of the allegations, the authorities were permitted to post him to a non-sensitive position. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.