Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1661 (GAU)

Joi Sora Son of Late Tojo Sora v. State of AP

2025-09-26

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the respondents. 2. This petition is instituted, challenging the order dated 01.12.2022, passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby, the petitioner was put under suspension in connection with SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 12/2022, under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420 IPC read with Sections 7 /8/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, pertaining to paper leakage in the APPSCCE, 2017 and its continued suspension without there being any review of the said suspension. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is serving as Primary Teacher at Government Upper Primary School, Kombo Tarsu, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was arrested by SIC (VIG) on 23.11.2022 in connection with the SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 12/2022, under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420 IPC read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, which has been registered as CBI Case No. RC0172023A0001. On the detention of the petitioner by SIC (VIG) for a period exceeding 48(forty eight) Hours in the Police custody, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.11.2022, vide order dated 01.12.2022 by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, invoking Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965). 4. The petitioner was served with the Memorandum dated 05.01.2023 by the Commissioner (Education) for holding of inquiryagainst the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the statement of article of charge, statement of misconduct and list of documents and directed the petitioner to submit written statement in his defence. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 20.01.2023 to the Departmental Inquiry Committee by clarifying the allegation made in the article of charges against him by denying all charges. 5. It is contended that the petitioner was released on bail after 90 (ninety) days on 22.02.2023. The 90 (ninety) days period expired on 22.05.2023. As per the Rules, the respondent authorities are to review the suspension before the expiry of 90 (ninety) days either by modifying, reviewing or revoking the suspension. The respondent authorities have neither reviewed nor revoked the suspension and have been allowed to continue from the date of suspension till date. The 90 (ninety) days period expired on 22.05.2023. As per the Rules, the respondent authorities are to review the suspension before the expiry of 90 (ninety) days either by modifying, reviewing or revoking the suspension. The respondent authorities have neither reviewed nor revoked the suspension and have been allowed to continue from the date of suspension till date. It is contended that after expiry of 90 (ninety) days, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and also joined his duty as there was no review of the suspension order either extending or revoking it. However, the respondent authorities have not accepted his joining on the ground that the suspension order dated 01.12.2022 has not been revoked and the petitioner has not been reinstated in the service. 6. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authorities have not responded to the request made by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order, but have rather illegally allowed the suspension of the petitioner to continue even after the expiry of nearly 2 (two) years from the date of release of the petitioner from detention, in violation of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the continued suspension of the petitioner without reviewing the same, either extending or revoking it, is illegal and arbitrary as the same is in violation of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He submits that the impugned suspension order dated 01.12.2022 ceased to operate w.e.f. 22.05.2023, as the respondent authorities failed to comply with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Keeping the petitioner under continued suspension without constituting a review committee within the mandatory period of 90 (ninety) days is clearly in violation of the relevant provisions of law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr. , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 He submits that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires rigid and mandatory compliance. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 may be set aside and quashed and direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 7. Mr. , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 He submits that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires rigid and mandatory compliance. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 may be set aside and quashed and direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 7. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the respondents, on instructions, submits that not only no review has been undertaken within the period of 90 (ninety) days but till date no review is made. Therefore, he submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the mandate of the law, review ought to have been made, inasmuch as, the law mandates that a suspension order must be reviewed within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of suspension, and a reasoned order must be passed either extending or revoking the suspension. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the law. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended vide the suspension order dated 01.12.2022, passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, in connection with SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 12/2022, under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420 IPC read with Sections 7 /8/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, pertaining to paper leakage in the APPSCCE, 2017. The petitioner was placed under suspension after he was arrested in the said case. Since the suspension order was affected from 23.11.2022, the 90 (ninety) days mandatory period for review expires on 21.02.2023.It is also an admitted position that no review has been undertaken either extending or revoking the suspension of the petitioner till date. 10. The law on the suspension and its review has been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinunder: “...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. 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 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. 17. The legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries has been emphasised by this Court on numerous occasions. The Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 , underscored that this right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., 1973; that it encompasses all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial; that the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay; that the Court must engage in a balancing test to determine whether this right had been denied in the particular case before it. Keeping these factors in mind the CAT had in the case in hand directed that the Appellant's suspension would not be extended beyond 90 days from 19.3.2013. The High Court had set aside this direction, viewing it as a substitution of a judicial determination to the authority possessing that power, i.e., the Government. 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet 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 concerned person 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 recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that 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.” 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the relevant provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, I am of the considered view that the suspension order which was issued on 01.12.2022, by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, w.e.f. from 23.11.2022, was required to be reviewed within the period of 90 (ninety) days, which has expired on 21.02.2023 and not having been reviewed the same, the continued suspension of the petitioner would be illegal. 12. 12. Having considered above and in view of the fact that the suspension order dated 01.12.2022, has not been reviewed within 90 (ninety) days and till date, same cannot be allowed to operate as the same would be in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Consequently, the impugned suspension order dated 01.12.2022, issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. The respondent authorities are directed to revoke the suspension order dated 01.12.2022, issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and reinstate the petitioner in service. 14. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed.