Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Assam And 2 Ors vs Mrigen Haloi on 28 February, 2020

Altaf Hussain vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 10 March, 2022

15. Having stated the above and by referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Mrigen Haloi (supra), it is quite apparent that a review of the suspension order, in the absence of memo of charge/charge-sheet being served within 3 (three) months of the suspension Page No.# 7/10 order, would have no effect, inasmuch as, there could not have been an extension of the suspension of the delinquent officer/employee beyond 3 (three) months. However, Regulation 2.1.8 (iii) of the Manual of Departmental Proceedings provides that in cases where it is not reasonably practicable to prepare the charges for service within 3 (three) months from the date of suspension and the continued suspension of the Government Servant is considered necessary in public interest, the authority concerned should move the Personnel Department through the Administrative Department, well before the expiry of the period of 3 (three) months, with a letter dictating the nature of the allegations and the reasons for which charge cannot be prepared, so that the Personnel Department could give it's advice as to whether any further extension of the period of suspension should be permitted or not.
Gauhati High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document

Josimuddin Ahmed @ Josim Uddin vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 1 October, 2021

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of State of Assam Vs. Mrigen Haloi, W.A. No. 28/2021 wherein the Division Bench of this Court had taken note of paragraph 15 and 17 of the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 2019 (5) GLT 600 to held that on the ration laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) also be applicable in the case of suspension under Section 62 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court held that the principles laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) would be applicable even in the case of deemed suspension and accordingly, if no review of the suspension had been made within 90 days, such deemed suspension and Page No.# 5/6 its continuation would be vitiated and would be liable to be interfered with.
Gauhati High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Jadab Chandra Nath vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 14 February, 2022

This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by granting two weeks time to the respondent No.1 to review the order of suspension dated 29.10.2020 in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as the subsequent decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra) and Mrigen Haloi (supra) and pass a speaking order redressing the grievance of the petitioner.
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

Sudhir Kr Paul vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 12 June, 2025

13. Coming to the present proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner was suspended on 14.12.2023 with effect from 11.12.2023. Before expiry of 3 (three) months, the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 01.03.2024. Subsequently, the review of suspension was also undertaken on 20.06.2024, 02.09.2024 and 10.12.2024 which was also within a period of 6 (six) months from the earlier order passed. The fact remains that the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated within a period of 3 (three) months in terms of the Office Memorandum No. ABP.13/2018/Pt./35 Page No.# 11/14 dated 04.02.2020 and the petitioner has urged before the Court that such action of the respondents is violative of the direction contained in the judgment rendered in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and Dipak Mali (supra) which followed by the Ajit Sonowal (supra), Mirgen Haloi (supra), Rekibuddin Ahmed (supra), whether the OM dated 04.02.2020 can be held to be implied with overruled by this Court is a question which need not detain this Court at this stage and the same is left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Saikia - Full Document

Bachan Singh vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 1 April, 2022

In the case of State of Assam and Others vs. Mrigen Haloi (WA 28/2021), the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 has held that the continued suspension of an employee could not be sustained since review was not held within 90 (ninety) days, but after 145 (one hundred forty five) days. In the present case, the review was held after more than a year. Further, Page No.# 3/3 the counsel for the respondents has not been able to produce any order showing that there has been a further extension of the suspension order, subsequent to the extension made on 28.12.2021.
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document
1