Periodic Review is Mandatory for Deemed Suspension; Failure to Review Within 90 Days Voids Suspension.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, was arrested on 11.11.2025 in connection with ACB Police Station Case No. 58/2025 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Following his detention for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension via order dated 05.12.2025, effective from the date of arrest (11.11.2025), pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964

The petitioner was released on bail on 12.12.2025 and notified the authorities of his release on 02.01.2026

Despite representations for reinstatement and subsistence allowance filed in early 2026, the respondents failed to act until June 2026—well beyond the 90-day window—at which point they issued a memorandum of charges and purported to review and extend the suspension retrospectively

1. Whether the principles regarding the mandatory 90-day periodic review of suspension, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhury, apply to cases of "deemed suspension" under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964

2. Whether a suspension order can be legally extended or "given a fresh lease of life" by a review conducted after the expiry of the initial 90-day period

Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which governs the suspension of government servants

Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India, which established that suspension should not extend beyond 90 days if a memorandum of charges is not served or if the suspension is not reviewed within that period

Rakibuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, which extended the Ajay Kumar Choudhury principles to deemed suspensions

State of Assam v. Ajit Sonowal, which held that a suspension lapses automatically if not reviewed within 90 days and cannot be revived by a subsequent late review

The Court reasoned that for employees suspended under Rule 6(2), the 90-day period for mandatory review begins from the date the employee informs the authority of their release from custody

In this case, the period commenced on 02.01.2026; therefore, the statutory window for review expired in early April 2026

The respondents' attempt to review the suspension and issue a memorandum of charges only in June 2026 was found legally insufficient.

Following the logic in Ajit Sonowal, the Court held that once the 90-day period expires without a review, the suspension order "lapses" and cannot be granted a "fresh lease of life" by retrospective review

The Court emphasized that the consequence of suspension is identical whether it is "deemed" or "pending inquiry," thus necessitating the same protection of periodic review to prevent indefinite, arbitrary suspension

The Court set aside and quashed the suspension order dated 05.12.2025. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full service benefits and release all pending subsistence allowance. However, the Court granted the Department liberty to post the petitioner to a non-sensitive post and proceed with the disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the 1964 Rules.