Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1547/2025 on 13 October, 2025
GAHC010055982025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
WP(C) No. 1547/2025
Dr. Atul Bora,
S/o Late H.C. Bora,
Resident of Principal's Residence,
Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari,
Guwahati-781016, Assam.
......Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Govt. of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati-781006, Assam.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati-781006, Assam.
3. The Director of Technical Education,
Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-781006, Assam.
......Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Biswas. ......Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Das, SC, Higher Edu.
......Advocate.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 1 of 38
Dates of Hearing : 29.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Heard Mr. R. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and also
heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Higher
Education Department.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2024, issued by the
Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Assam, whereby
the petitioner was placed under suspension and also challenged the
review order, dated 27.01.2025, issued by the Secretary, Higher
Education (Technical) Department wherein petitioner's suspension was
further extended for a period of 90 days.
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-
The petitioner was appointed as a Principal, Engineering College and posted as the Principal, Jorhat Engineering College, vide order dated 10.11.2008, and he served there since 25.03.2009 to 10.04.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.03.2012, he was transferred and posted as the Principal of the Assam Engineering College at Guwahati, where he joined on 11.04.2012. Since then, petitioner has been performing his duties without complaint from any quarter. During his tenure, he had taken the institution to new heights of excellence and WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 2 of 38 academic performance. He was also allowed to hold additional charge of the Director of Technical Education for the periods from 01.09.2011 to 16.12.2017 and 23.07.2019 to 04.02.2022.
On 24.08.2012, in the Office of the Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education Department, a meeting was held to review the overall Hostel and College Administration of the Assam Engineering College. In the said meeting, it was specifically resolved that a professional agency would be engaged for campus security and the approach gates would be repaired and properly manned to monitor the entry of people in vehicles into the campus. Besides, several measures were adopted to improve the situation prevalent in the hostels of the Assam Engineering College, and to meet challenges being faced by hostels of the College.
Then on 30.05.2023, seven students of the Assam Engineering College, who were also boarders in the Hostel of the College, had lost their lives in an unfortunate motor accident. On account of such accident, an order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-2) was issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department whereby an enquiry was conducted into allegations that the authorities of the Assam Engineering College had not been exercising proper administrative control to curb alcohol consumption and late-night partying amongst hostel boarders and maintain discipline. The scope of enquiry was to include the system of Hostel administration in all Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic institutes under the Higher Education (Technical) Department, Government of Assam.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 3 of 38Thereafter, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report about the entire incident on 31.05.2023 (Annexure-3), wherein it was clearly stated that the students involved in the accident had gone out without any permission/intimation to the Hostel authorities which was a gross violation of the Rules and Regulations for Boarders of Hostels of Assam Engineering College. The incident had caused significant public uproar, and in such circumstances, a Press Release was issued by the Chief Minister's Public Relations Cell, Government of Assam on 01.06.2023 (Annexure-4) clarifying that the Chief Minister had directed the Education Department to institute a High-Level Enquiry Committee to enquire into the circumstances leading to the accident and the premature death of the students. It was further stated that till such enquiry was complete and the report is examined by the government, the petitioner and the Superintendent of the concerned hostel would be asked to go on leave. Thereafter, on the very same day, the petitioner was directed to mandatorily go on leave until further orders, and handover charge to another Professor of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to hand over charge as Principal, Assam Engineering College on 02.06.2023 (Annexure-6) and go on compulsory leave. Thereafter, a High- Level Committee was constituted on 03.06.2023, to look into the reasons behind the accident that resulted in the death of the seven students as well as the alleged lack of administrative supervision in the Assam Engineering College. However, one of the members of the Committee recused himself, as a result of which the Committee was reconstituted on 25.07.2023. The WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 4 of 38 Director of Technical Education, Assam was appointed as the Coordinator of the Committee which was directed to submit its report within one (1) month.
The said High-Level Committee in its report dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure-7), incorrectly concluded that the petitioner had failed to take steps to implement the resolutions adopted in the meeting dated 24.08.2012 and that he had been lax in enforcing discipline in the College and had also failed to visit the accident site and homes of the victims. It was seen that the Committee sought to attribute the entire blame for the unfortunate accident on the petitioner. In doing so, the committee disregarded its own categorical finding that the students were intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol and other narcotic drugs at the time of the accident.
Then based upon the findings recorded in the aforesaid Enquiry Report of the High-Level Committee, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department issued a Show Cause Notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 on 21.12.2023 (Annexure-8) asking him to show cause as to why the penalties under Rule 7 should not be inflicted upon him. All the charges contained in the said show cause notice were verbatim reproductions of the conclusion/findings of the Enquiry Report submitted by the High-Level Committee.
Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on each of the eight charges framed against him on 05.01.2024 (Annexure-9). In WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 5 of 38 the said reply, it was inter alia pointed out that the mandate of the Committee viz. "Lack of Administrative Supervision of Assam Engineering College" seemed to be limited to enquiring solely into the role of the Principal whereas the role of all other authorities, including the Higher Education Department, Government of Assam had been ignored. That though the disciplinary authority is in receipt of the reply submitted by the appellant, no steps have been taken as required under the provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Thereafter, the petitioner, instead of following the mandate of law as laid down under 9(4) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department issued the order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-10) whereby the petitioner was punitively transferred and posted as Principal, Jorhat Institute of Science & Technology (JIST), Jorhat. Though the said order was ostensibly shown to be in the interest of public service, it is apparent that it has been issued with the sole intention of penalizing the petitioner for the accident which occurred on 30.05.2023, without however recalling the earlier 'compulsory leave' order, dated 01.06.2023.
The petitioner then approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 567 of 2024 seeking setting aside/quashing the order dated 01.06.2023, wherein this Court, vide order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure-11) took a prima facie view that the order dated 29.01.2024, was passed in lieu of punishment and WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 6 of 38 is punitive in nature and accordingly, stayed the order dated 29.01.2024.
Then on the basis of an alleged enquiry report, dated 14.02.2024 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, pertaining to the charge against the petitioner, when he was holding the additional post of Director, Technical Education in the Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari, Gauhati, regarding engagement of part-time faculties of the year 2017, enhanced rate of remuneration for Guest/Part-Time faculties, for not undertaking fresh engagement process after completion of initial engagement of the Part-Time Guest Faculties for a period of 6 months etc., petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure-12), issued by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Assam.
Then after issuance of suspension order, the petitioner was given show cause notice vide letter dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure-18), issued by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, and the petitioner had replied to the same. Thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-20), this Court had allowed the Writ Petition (C) No 567 of 2024, partly, by setting aside and quashing the notification dated 01.06.2023 in so far as it concerns directing the petitioner to proceed on leave, however refused to interfere with the notification dated 29.01.2024, by which the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Principal of JIST, Jorhat.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 7 of 38Thereafter, vide Notification dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure-
21), issued by the Secretary, Higher Education (Technical) Department, suspension of the petitioner was further extended for a period of 90 days in a cryptic and mechanical manner without examining the necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension. The said notification was communicated to the petitioner on 15-02-2025, through e-mail which ought to have done within a day through electronic media and in the first suspension order dated 30.10.2024, the period of suspension was not specifically mentioned.
It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 30.10.2024 and 27.01.2025 have been issued by the respondent authorities under pressure for extraneous considerations. And the respondents had taken this drastic action in a most arbitrary and whimsically, and thereby, the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 have been violated with total impunity. In this manner, the respondent authorities have meted out hostile discrimination to the petitioner and have also violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned orders dated 30.10.2024 and 27.01.2025 and thereafter, to direct the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension order and the subsequent review order extending the period of suspension.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 8 of 38It is also stated that the impugned orders dated 30.10.2024 and 27.01.2025, whereby the petitioner was suspended and further his suspension was extended has been shown to be issued in the interest of public service. However, it is apparent from the attending facts and circumstances that the intention of the respondent authorities was to penalize the petitioner and make him a scapegoat for the unfortunate and unforeseen accident which resulted in the death of the seven students.
4. The respondent No.2 had filed its affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it had taken a stand that vide order dated 30/10/2024, the petitioner was placed under suspension from service by the authority in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Further, it is stated that when a government servant is aggrieved by any such order passed against him by the authority under Rule 6, then under the said Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 the remedy available to such government servant is to approach the appellate authority by way of filing an appeal under Rule 14, and when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, he, before approaching the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to have availed such alternative remedy. It had, however, denied that the High Level Committee had incorrectly concluded that the petitioner had failed to take steps to implement the resolutions adopted in the meeting dated 24/08/2012, instead, the High Level Committee after Inquiry submitted that the petitioner, as the then Principal, Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, failed to take appropriate steps to implement the Resolutions at Points No. (g), (h), (i) & (j) adopted in the WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 9 of 38 meeting dated 24/08/2012, which, as stated, reflects poorly on the leadership and administrative qualities on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the findings of the committee that the students were intoxicated at the time of the incident, does not negate the failure on the part of the Petitioner to take appropriate steps to implement the Resolutions of minutes dated 24/08/2012, and that the Government issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 on 21/12/2023 based on the findings of the High-Level Committee. It is also stated that the Higher Education (Technical) Department has taken necessary action by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as per Rule 9(4) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 vide Notification No.E- 465848/8 and E-465848/-8-A dated 07/12/2024, and that the Government in Higher Education (Technical) Department has appointed the petitioner as Principal of Assam Engineering College to serve his duties and responsibilities in the college on behalf of the Government. Hence fixing responsibilities on the petitioner implies fixing the responsibilities of the affairs of the college on the government itself. And that the role of the Government in Higher Education (Technical) Department is not ignored. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been regularly conducting hearing and the Enquiry Report is soon going to be submitted to the department. It is also stated that transferring a Government Official whether he was on leave or on duty is a matter or administrative exigency on the part of the Government in the interest of public service and therefore, transfer cannot be considered as punishment and that the petitioner who was on leave had been posted as Principal of JIST in the interest of public service. Copy of the Notification No.E-306722/10 and E-306722/10-A dated 20/02/2024 is annexed WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 10 of 38 herewith and marked as Annexure-1. Further, the respondent No.2 would not offer any comment as the same are matters of record, however, he does not admit anything which is contrary to and/or inconsistent with the records of the case.
That the Government has conveyed its approval towards Engagement of guest/part-time faculties in 11 (eleven) new polytechnics and Barak Valley Engineering College from April 2017 on the following conditions:-
(i) Appointment should be on purely temporary basis till regular appointment of faculties against created posts.
(ii) Salary/remuneration should be fixed pay only.
(iii) All the existing procedures, if any, should be strictly followed for appointment of the guest/part-time faculties.
It is further stated that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the department had found gross anomalies in the process of engagement of Guest/Part-time faculties which is in contradiction to the conditions laid down in the department's letter conveying the approval engagement of Guest/Part-time faculties vide No. PMΑ (Η) 197/2016/11 dated 13/02/2017 and only on the basis of this report, the department vide Notification No. eFile No.465848/4 dated 30/10/2024, placed the petitioner under suspension and initiated Departmental Proceeding against him by serving Show-cause notice vide letter eFile No.465848/6 dated 15/11/2024.
It is also stated that the notification, dated 27/01/2025 extending the period of suspension in respect of the petitioner for a further period of 90 (ninety) days w.e.f. 28/01/2025, was issued as per the recommendation of the Periodical Review Meeting held on 27/01/2025, WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 11 of 38 following the provisions of the Personnel Department's O.M. No.ABP.13/2018/PU35, dated 04/02/2020. Subsequently, as per the recommendation of the Periodical Review Meeting held on 22/04/2025, the period of suspension of the Petitioner was again extended for another 90(ninety) days with effect from 28/04/2025 until further orders vide notification dated 28/04/2025. Now the next periodical review meeting on the status of the suspension of the Petitioner is scheduled to be held on 19/07/2025. Thereafter, vide periodical review meeting dated 19/07/2025, it was decided to extend the period of suspension of the Petitioner for another period of 90 (ninety) days w.e.f. 27/07/2025, and that due process has been followed and the extension notifications were issued afterwards.
It is also stated that at present 2 (two) nos. of Departmental Proceedings are drawn up against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of the enquiry report of the then Additional Chief Secretary citing gross irregularities in the process of engagement of Guest/Part- time faculties and not for the accident of the students of Assam Engineering College. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Inquiry Officer in respect of the first departmental proceeding (matter relating to accident in Assam Engineering College) has already submitted the Inquiry Report to the Department, vide forwarding letter dated 13.06.2025, which is presently under consideration.
5. The respondent No.2 has also filed an additional affidavit-in- opposition on the ground that due to some bonafide inadvertence, some facts were wrongly incorporated therein and some documents were left out to be annexed along with the said Affidavit-in-Opposition and as such, as per direction of this Court in its order dated 21/07/2025, liberty was granted to file additional Affidavit thereby bringing on record the WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 12 of 38 correct position. Hence, the respondent No.2 has filed this additional affidavit and not pressing the earlier Affidavit-in-Opposition filed on 19/07/2025.
6. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by his perpetual, illegal and arbitrary suspension order, dated 30.10.2024, issued by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Assam. According to Mr. Biswas, the suspension order, on the face of it, is tainted with mala-fide and is motivated one. Mr. Biswas has pointed out that the respondent authorities have initiated two Departmental Proceedings and the charges in both the proceeding are identical. It is the further submission of Mr. Biswas that in respect of the first one, the enquiry has already been completed and the respondent authority has not yet taken a decision upon the said enquiry report. And in the second Departmental Proceeding, 99% evidence has already been recorded.
6.1. Under such facts and circumstances, keeping the petitioner on perpetual suspension is illegal and arbitrary and that Mr. Biswas also submits that the charges against the petitioner relates to the year 2017 and that after more than 7 years, the respondent authority has started the disciplinary proceeding which according to him is motivated one and is tainted and the impugned order were passed in colorable exercise of power. Further submission of Mr. Biswas is that the review order dated 27.01.2025, by which the suspension order of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 90 days in a cryptic and mechanical order and the same was passed without examining the necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension and the second review order was in fact not communicated to the petitioner and the said order is a backdated one as no date is mentioned therein. It is the further WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 13 of 38 submission of Mr. Biswas that the petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination and his right to equality, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is a fundamental right, is violated. Under such circumstances, Mr. Biswas submits that the suspension order and the review orders warrant interference by this Court.
6.2. Mr. Biswas, also referred following decisions in support of his submission:-
(i) Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147;
(ii) Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291;
(iii) K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257;
(iv) Union of India v. Dipak Mali, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222; and
(v) State of T.N. vs. Promod Kumar, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677.
7. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent authorities, submits that para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 is not disputed by the petitioner. Mr. Das also submits that though no date of communication was there in the order of extension of suspension dated 22.04.2025, yet the review was held on time and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Further contention of Mr. Das is that the petition itself is not maintainable since alternative remedy was there. Mr. Das also submits that the decisions WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 14 of 38 cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. Under such circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities and the impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024, and also the review order, dated 27.01.2025. Also I have gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. In view of submission advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issues to be addressed by this Court are formulated as under:-
(i) Whether the impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure 12) of the petition is arbitrary and illegal?
(ii) Whether review and extension orders, dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure-3) and subsequent review and extension order dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure-
5) of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No.2 are illegal and arbitrary ?
10. Before delving a discussion to the issue involved, this Court deemed it appropriate to understand the purpose of suspension. The purpose of suspension was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), where it has been held that suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings. It is a device to keep the delinquent out of mischief range. And its purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered and that the delinquent may WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 15 of 38 not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. The relevant observation is found in para No. 27 of the said decision, which read as under:-
"27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review."
11. Regarding exercise of power of suspension, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held as under:-
"21. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 16 of 38
22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank, etc."
12. How long this suspension will continue, has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Chaudhury(supra) as under:-
"11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.
12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 17 of 38 of his department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that -- "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
13. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 assures that:
"12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
12.1. Thereafter, again in para 21 of the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 18 of 38 charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
13. Again, in respect of review of the suspension order, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Mali(supra) has held as under:-
"10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 19 of 38 suspension of the respondent and when the petitioners' case came up for review on 20-10- 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.
11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension."
14. Again, in the case of Promod Kumar(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue has held as under:-
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 20 of 38"24. The first respondent was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of the State Government for continuing the first respondent under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made against the first respondent are serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the first respondent for a prolonged period is justified.
25. The first respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first respondent on bail, liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly, no complaint is made by CBI in that regard. Even now the appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first respondent to tamper with evidence.
26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 27-6-2016, it was mentioned that the first respondent is capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of the first respondent misusing office if he is reinstated as Inspector General of Police. Only on the basis of the minutes of WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 21 of 38 the Review Committee meeting, the Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered extension of the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days beyond 9-7-2016 vide order dated 6-7- 2016.
27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non-sensitive post."
15. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, now we will proceed to test the impugned suspension order as well as review orders. In order to address the issue formulated herein above, and to address the same with precision, this Court deemed it appropriate to reproduce the impugned suspension and review orders herein below.
15.1. The impugned suspension order, dated 30.10.2024, read as under:-
ANNEXURE -12 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT DISPUR: GUWAHATI-6.
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
NOTIFICATION
Dated, Dispur the 2024
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 22 of 38
eFile No.465-48/4: Whereas, an enquiry report bearing No. BRS/ACS/01/2024/13, dated 14 February, 2024, received from the then Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department regarding violation of rules & procedure in engagement of Part-Time/Guest faculties in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of Assam by Dr. Atul Bora, the then Director of Technical Education, Assam and the then Chairman of the Selection Committees, and, Whereas, it has been found from the enquiry report that, the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committees constituted for the selection of Part-Time faculties and also the final select lists were not drawn up by the Selection Committees, thereby vitiating the procedure of selection, Whereas, as per Guidelines/Terms & Condition for enhanced rate of remuneration for Guest/Part- Time faculties issued by Dr. Atul Bora, the then Director of Technical Education, Assam vide letter No. TE(E)A-45/2019/1727, dated 24th March, 2021, the Part-Time faculties already engaged in Engineering Colleges & Polytechnics were to be entitled to the enhanced rate of remuneration only if they fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per AICTE/UGC norms and satisfactory track record of performance, which were to be scrutinized by a Screening Committee; and, Whereas, the minutes of the above-mentioned Screening Committee was also not drawn up, thereby violating the Screening Committee procedures and also violation of the fore-mentioned Guidelines; and, WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 23 of 38 Whereas, as per the Undertakings submitted by the Part-time/Guest faculties in light the afore- mentioned guidelines, it was undertaken to receive the remuneration at the enhanced rate subject to the condition that they will not claim for regularization of job without facing APSC as per norms and whereas, Dr. Atul Bora, the then Director of Technical Education, Assam, in spite of frequent violation of the Undertakings by the candidates by repeatedly claiming regularization of job by resorting to litigation against the Government, could not take any action against them. Whereas, utter violation of the said guidelines & undertakings is also a clear violation of the AFRBM Act, 2005 and it shows the berate misuse of Government's delegated power, and, Whereas, fresh engagement process was not undertaken by Dr. Atul Bora after completion of initial engagement of the Part-Time/ Guest faculties for a period of 6(Six) hs. But rather, he repeatedly issued engagement letters to the same incumbents after 6 (Six) months without any break, which is clear violation of provision of the Government Guidelines/intent.
Now, therefore, pending drawal of Departmental Proceeding, Dr. Atul Bora, the then principal, (on leave), Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, is placed under suspension nom service in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, with immediate effect.
The Headquarters during the period of suspension of the said Dr. Atul Bora shall be Guwahati and he shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned. It will also not be permissible for WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 24 of 38 him to accept private employment or to do business while under suspension.
BY ORDER AND IN THE IN THE NAME OF GOVRNOR Signed by Narayan Konwar Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department.
16. A careful perusal of the suspension order, and also the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No.2, it appears that, for the period of holding the charge of Director of Technical Education by the petitioner, in respect of engagement of guest/part-time faculties in 11 (eleven) new polytechnics and Barak Valley Engineering College from April 2017, and in respect of payment of enhanced rate of remuneration, the then Additional Chief Secretary of the department had found gross anomalies in the process of engagement of Guest/Part-time faculties which is in contradiction to the conditions laid down in the department's letter conveying the approval engagement of Guest/Part-time faculties vide No.PMΑ (Η) 197/2016/11 dated 13/02/2017 and only on the basis of this report, the department vide Notification No. eFile No.465848/4 dated 30/10/2024, placed the petitioner under suspension and initiated Departmental Proceeding against him by serving Show-cause notice vide letter eFile No.465848/6 dated 15/11/2024. Notably, the petitioner was holding additional charge as Director of Technical Education for the period of 01.09.2011 to 16.12.2017 and from 23.07.2019 to 04.02.2022.
16.1. Further, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, especially from the paragraph No.16, that two departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner and the enquiry in respect of the first Departmental Proceeding is already WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 25 of 38 completed and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report vide letter dated 13.06.2025.
16.2. It also appears that the petitioner was under forced mandatory leave, with effect from 02.06.2023, until further orders. And while he was under forced mandatory leave, he was transferred and posted as Principal Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology, Jorhat vide order dated 29.01.2024. However, said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 567 of 2024. Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report of the Addl. Chief Secretary, vide Notification No. eFile No.465848/4 dated 30/10/2024, placed the petitioner under suspension.
16.3. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, following facts and circumstances emerges:-
(i) The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30/10/2024, while he was working as Principal, Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari, Guwahati;
(ii) He was under forced mandatory leave, w.e.f. from 02.06.2023, until further orders, in connection with accidental death of seven students, who were boarders of the Hostel on 30.05.2023;
(iii) He was placed under suspension, while he was under
forced mandatory leave, w.e.f. from 02.06.2023, until further orders,
(iv) He was placed under suspension on the basis of the report submitted by the Addl. Chief Secretary;WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 26 of 38
(v) The charges against the petitioner relates to gross anomalies in engagement of guest/part-time faculties in 11 (eleven) new polytechnics and Barak Valley Engineering College from April 2017, and in respect of payment of enhanced rate of remuneration;
(vi) The said anomalies were allegedly committed by the petitioner, while he was holding additional charge as Director of Technical Education for the period of 01.09.2011 to 16.12.2017 and from 23.07.2019 to 04.02.2022.
(vii) At present, two numbers of Departmental Proceedings are pending against the petitioner.
(Viii) The first Departmental Proceeding has already been completed and the Inquiry Officer had already submitted his report vide letter dated 13.06.2025.
(ix) Till date, no order is being passed upon the first Departmental Proceeding;
16.4. Thus, having tested the impugned suspension order dated 30/10/2024, on the touchstone of the proposition of law laid down in the cases discussed herein above, especially, the purpose of suspension and its duration, this Court is of the view that the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny, in as much as, at the time of suspension the petitioner was no longer the Director of Technical Education, Assam rather he was working as Principal, Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari, Guwahati. Over and above, he was under forced mandatory leave, with effect from 02.06.2023, until further orders. As held in the case of Ashok Kumar WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 27 of 38 Aggarwal (supra), if suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range and the purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered, then the same was absolutely unwarranted as the petitioner was already out of the mischief range as because he was no longer in additional charge of the Director, Technical Education, Assam at the time of suspension. Even, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that it was warranted as an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position, yet, the first disciplinary proceeding has already been completed with submission of report vide letter dated 13.06.2025.
16.5. It is also well settled in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), that suspension order cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. In the instant case, nothing is demonstrated by the respondent authorities that public interest will be affected by continuation in office by the petitioner.
16.6. Thus, the whole exercise done by the respondent authorities suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the case of S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427], a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"14. ... absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. ... the rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 28 of 38 is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law."
16.7. It is to be noted here that while dealing with arbitrariness, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, held as under:-
"59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision-making process remains bad."
16.8. It is to be noted here that the impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024, Annexure- 12 of the petition, is being challenged on account of the same being discriminatory and also arbitrary, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And in that view of the matter, the impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024, (Annexure-12) has to be tested by applying the principle of proportionality and also by applying the Wednesbury principle, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 29 of 38 Court in the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"68. Thus, when administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review is for the courts by applying proportionality. However, where administrative action is questioned as "arbitrary" under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principles applies."
16.9. Thus, it is also well settled that in cases, where the administrative action is challenged for being discriminatory and consequently violating Article 14, the Court acts as the primary reviewing authority. The standard of review to be applied, in such cases, is that of proportionality, ensuring that administrative authorities maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons, and the purpose which the order intended to serve. The courts are required to employ the four- pronged test of proportionality to evaluate whether the administrative action is discriminatory and hence violative of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14.
16.10. However, when administrative action is challenged for being arbitrary, it only 'indirectly' violates the right to equality under Article 14. Arbitrariness was established as a ground of challenge by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N, reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, by giving Article 14 an expansive interpretation. In the said case, it was observed that "from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness and where an act is WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 30 of 38 arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law, therefore violating Article 14.
16.11. Therefore, when an administrative action is challenged on grounds of arbitrariness, the courts play a secondary role in examining whether the administrators in discharging their primary role as adjudicators have adhered to the standards laid down in the Wednesbury test. The courts cannot apply the more intrusive proportionality test in such cases, limiting their intervention to judging the reasonableness of the decision-making process on the basis of the Wednesbury test.
16.12. It is to be noted here in the case of Associated Provincial Picture House Limited vs. Wednesbury Corporation, reported in (1947) 2 AII ER 680, the United Kingdom, Court of Appeal held that the action of the administrative authorities would be declared unconstitutional is it meets the following circumstances:-
1. Consideration of irrelevant and extraneous factors.
2. Neglect of relevant factors.
3. Decision is irrational to a reasonable person and no reasonable person in their wildest of dream would reach that particular conclusion.
16.13. In the instant case, it has already been held that the whole exercise done by the respondent authorities by placing the petitioner on suspension, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned suspension order was passed while the petitioner was under forced mandatory leave. He was not the Director of Technical Education, Assam at the time of suspension.
The charges relating to gross anomalies in respect of part time/guest WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 31 of 38 lecturers in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic, against the petitioner, relates back to the year 2017 and more than 7 years old.
16.14. Under the given facts and circumstances, the action of respondent No.2 in placing the petitioner under suspension, to the considered opinion of this Court has failed to withstand the test of proportionality and also the principle of secondary review, based on Wednesbury principle. Such action of the respondent No.2 had caused undue hardship to the petitioner, who has been serving in the capacity of Principal since 11.10.2008, without any blemish.
16.15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case of interference of the impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024, is clearly made out. Thus, the Issue No. (i), as formulated herein above, is answered accordingly.
17. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the review orders dated 27th January, 2025 and subsequent review order dated 28.04.2025 are illegal and arbitrary. It appears that both these review orders were issued based on the Minutes of Meeting of the Review Committee. For the sake of convenience, the Minutes and the orders are reproduced herein below.
17.1. The Minutes of the first review meeting, dated 27.01.2025, by which suspension of the petitioner was reviewed for the first time, is read as under:-
ANNEXURE-2 MINUTES OF THE PERIODICAL REVIEW MEETING ON THE STATUS OF SUSPENSION ORDERS HELD ON 27-01- 2025 at 01:00 PM IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 32 of 38 Members Present- At Annexure-I The meeting was chaired by Shri Narayan Konwar, IAS, Secretary, Higher Education Department. At the outset of the meeting, he welcomed the members of the meeting.
The Review Meeting on suspension orders was held as per provisions of the Personnel Department's O.M. Νο.ΛΒΡ. 13/2018/Pt/35 dated 04.02.2020.
The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department, Sri Madhu Sudan Nath, ACS briefly explained the purpose of the meeting and apprised about the present status of the suspension orders in respect of Dr. Atul Bora, Principal (U/S) who was suspended vide notification No.465848/4 dated 30/10/2024. The period of suspension of Dr Atul Bora will complete 90 (ninety) days on 27/01/2025.
The meeting discussed regarding the current status of the suspension of the officer and after threadbare discussion, the following decisions was taken:-
1. It was decided to extend the period of suspension in respect of Dr Atul Bora, Principal (U/S) for another period of 90 (ninety) days with effect from 28/01/2025 as it is apprehended that if the officer is reinstated into service he may exert undue influence on the departmental proceeding already initiated against him.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the Chair.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 33 of 38(Shri Narayan Konwar, IAS) Secretary, Higher Education Department 17.2. The consequential order, dated 27.01.2025, of extension of the suspension of the petitioner, is read as under:-
ANNEXURE-3 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT DISPUR:::::: GUWAHATI-6 NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the 27th January, 2025 ATE.3/2025/4: As per the recommendation of the Periodical Review Meeting held on 27/01/2025, the period of suspension of Dr. Atul Bora, Principal (Under Suspension), who was placed under suspension vide Notification No. 465848/4 dated 30/10/2024, is hereby extended for another 90 (Ninety) days with effect from 28/01/2025 until further orders.
Sd/-
Narayan Konwar, IAS
Secretary to the Govt. of
Assam,
Higher Education Department
17.3. The Minutes of the second review meeting, dated 22.04.2025, by which suspension of the petitioner was reviewed for the second time, is read as under:-
ANNEXURE-4 WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 34 of 38 SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Members Present- At Annexure-А The meeting was chaired by Shri Narayan Konwar, IAS, Secretary, Higher Education Department. At the outset of the meeting, he welcomed the members of the meeting The Review Meeting on suspension orders was held as per provisions of the Personnel Department's O.M. No.ABP.13/2018/Pt/35 dated 04.02.2020.
The Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department, Smti Ashrumoni Malakar, ACS briefly explained the purpose of the meeting and apprised about the present status of the suspension orders in respect of the following officer:-
1. Dr Atul Bora, Principal (U/S) The meeting discussed regarding the current status of the suspension of the officer and after threadbare discussion, the following decisions was taken:-
1. It was decided to extend the period of suspension in respect of Dr Atul Bora, Principal (U/S) for another period of 90 (ninety) days w.e.f. 28-04-2025, as it is apprehended that if the officer is reinstated into service he may exert undue influence on the departmental proceeding already initiated against him.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the Chair.
(Shri Narayan Konwar, IAS), Secretary, Higher Education Department WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 35 of 38 17.4. The consequential order of extension of the suspension of the petitioner, dated 28.04.2025, is read as under:-
ANNEXURE-5 GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the... April, 2025 Efile No. 642164/2: As per the recommendation of the Periodical Review Meeting held on 22/04/2025, the period of suspension of Dr. Atul Bora, Principal (Under Suspension), who was placed under suspension vide Notification No. 465848/4 dated 30/10/2024 is hereby extended for another 90 (Ninety) days with effect from 28/04/2025 until further orders.Digitally signed by Narayan Konwar,
Secretary the Govt. of Assam Higher Education Department
18. A bare perusal of both the minutes indicates that ground for extension of the suspension period is same. In the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27-01-2025, the ground stated is that it is apprehended that if the officer is reinstated into service he may exert undue influence on the departmental proceeding already initiated against him. Again in the Minutes of the Meeting, allegedly held on 22.04.2025, also the very same ground is mentioned that it is apprehended that if the officer is reinstated into service he may exert undue influence on the departmental proceeding already initiated against him. More importantly, nothing is mentioned in this Minutes as to when the meeting was held.
WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 36 of 38Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, contended that in fact the minute is of back dated and no meeting was held on that date. In the given factual background, the submission of Mr. Biswas, appears to have some substance.
18.1. Coupled with above, if we examine the ground for extension we will find that both the grounds are identical and it appears to have no basis, in as much as, at the relevant time of suspension, the petitioner was no longer holding the additional charge of Director, Technical Education. He was working as Principal, Assam Engineering College and he was under
forced mandatory leave extension. He had no occasion to have the access of the relevant documents of the period to which the charges of Departmental Proceeding relates to. The apprehension, based on which the period of suspension was extended, appears to be unfounded.
18.2. In the case of Promod Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon its earlier decision in Ajoy Kumar Chaudhury (supra), has already held that this Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and further held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non-sensitive post.
18.3. Thus, under the given facts and circumstances on the record and also considering the ratio laid down in the cases discussed herein above, especially in para No. 21 in the case of Ajoy Kumar Chaudhury WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 37 of 38 (supra), this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the suspension of the petitioner. His reinstatement would no way jeopardize the fair trial, as one of the Departmental Proceeding has already been completed. And the other is underway and 99% evidence has already been recorded.
19. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner is a non-sensitive posts. The impugned suspension order dated 30.10.2024 and review of suspension orders dated 27.01.2025, 22.04.2025 and 19.07.2025 are accordingly, interfered with. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to take both the Departmental proceedings to their logical conclusion.
20. Let the exercise mentioned above shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authority within a period of one week from today.
21. The parties have to bear their own costs.
Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE Comparing Assistant JUDGE WP(C) 1547/2025 Page 38 of 38