Continuous suspension without charge sheet or review within ninety days is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was appointed as an Excise Inspector in the Government of Assam in October 2022

On June 21, 2025, he was issued a Show Cause Notice following the discovery of illegal liquor and fake holograms within his jurisdiction

Subsequently, on July 21, 2025, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, pending departmental proceedings

The petitioner challenged the suspension, contending that despite the lapse of four months, no memorandum of charges or charge sheet had been served upon him, nor was a reasoned order for extension passed within the mandatory 90-day review period

The State argued that a Review Committee met on October 17, 2025, to recommend extension, though the formal order was only signed on January 6, 2026

1. Whether the continuous suspension of the petitioner is legally sustainable when no memorandum of charges or charge sheet was served within 90 days

2. Whether an extension of suspension issued after the 90-day period, based on a timely review meeting, satisfies the requirements of law

The court applied Rule 6(1)(a) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, which empowers the authority to place a government servant under suspension

The primary governing precedent was the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, which established that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if a memorandum of charges or charge sheet is not served within that period; if served, a reasoned order must be passed for any extension

The court observed that the petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 21, 2025, meaning the 90-day statutory period for review expired on October 21, 2025

While the Review Committee met within this window on October 17, 2025, the formal extension order was not signed until January 6, 2026, and was issued on January 9, 2026—clearly exceeding the 90-day limit

the court found that the respondent authorities failed to serve a memorandum of charges or a charge sheet on the petitioner as of the date of the judgment

Applying the Ajay Kumar Choudhury mandate, the court reasoned that the failure to serve the charge sheet within the initial three months made the continued suspension "dehors the law"

The court emphasized that the procedural safeguards regarding the duration of suspension are mandatory to preserve human dignity and the right to a speedy trial

The court held that the petitioner could not be kept under continuous suspension without the service of a charge sheet within the prescribed period

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith

the court granted the respondent authorities the liberty to proceed with departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law