Facts
The petitioner, an Assam Police Service officer serving as Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai, was present during a police raid conducted on 01.07.2025 pursuant to a special drive against illegal cattle slaughter and sale of beef.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 4–5Although the seized meat was reported to be sheep/goat meat and cooked chicken, allegations subsequently emerged that the petitioner had demanded and accepted a bribe in connection with the incident.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 4–5An ACB case was later registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6The petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.09.2025 under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, pending initiation of departmental proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7No memorandum of charges or charge-sheet was served within three months of the suspension.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 9–10The petitioner challenged the continuation of his suspension, contending that it had lapsed after 90 days and that the subsequent orders could not retrospectively validate the intervening period.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 11–14Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s suspension under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 could lawfully continue beyond 90 days when no memorandum of charges or charge-sheet had been served within that period?
Source reference: pp. 7–10, paras. 19–23, 27–322. Whether the subsequent review and extension notifications validly continued the suspension, despite inconsistencies regarding the dates of review, the retrospective effect of the notifications, and the absence of a clear record of compliance with the applicable requirements?
Source reference: pp. 8–10, paras. 24–293. Whether the later show-cause notice dated 26.06.2026 could retrospectively validate the continuation of suspension during the preceding period?
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 22–23, 29Law Applied
The Court applied Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, governing suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 19Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Court held that suspension ordinarily cannot continue beyond three months where the memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has not been served within that period; where charges are served and continuation is considered necessary, a reasoned order for extension is required.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20The Court also applied the Government of Assam’s Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, which requires service of the memorandum of charges or charge-sheet before expiry of three months and a reasoned decision for continuation of suspension.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 21A subsequent order cannot retrospectively cure non-compliance with the requirements governing continuation of suspension.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 29Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s suspension commenced on 11.09.2025 and that no memorandum of charges or charge-sheet was served within the initial three-month period; departmental proceedings were initiated only through the show-cause notice dated 26.06.2026.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 22That subsequent notice could not validate the suspension during the intervening period.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 23The respondents’ account of the review process was also internally inconsistent: they claimed that the petitioner’s representation dated 15.12.2025 had been considered by a Review Committee that had allegedly met on 01.11.2025, which was chronologically impossible.
Source reference: p. 8, paras. 24–25No satisfactory record showed when or how the review had taken place or that its result had been communicated to the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 26Further, the extension notifications dated 16.01.2026 and 11.05.2026 purported to operate from 11.12.2025, creating an unexplained overlap and apparent retrospective continuation.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 27–28The gravity of the allegations could not dispense with compliance with the statutory and procedural safeguards governing suspension.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 30Holding
The Court held that the continuation of the petitioner’s suspension beyond 90 days from 11.09.2025 was unsustainable because no charge-sheet or memorandum of charges had been served within the prescribed period and the respondents failed to establish a valid, continuous, and procedurally compliant basis for extension.
The continuation of suspension beyond the initial 90-day period was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 33The order did not prevent the respondents from proceeding with the departmental proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice dated 26.06.2026.
Source reference: p. 11, paras. 33–34The petitioner was granted consequential service benefits in accordance with law, while treatment of the suspension period was left to the competent authority under the applicable rules.
Source reference: p. 11, paras. 33–34The writ petition was allowed and disposed of without costs.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 35Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883
Original Court PDF
Pallav TamulyvsState Of Assam And 2 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
