STATE OF ASSAM Vs. DIPANKAR KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the appellants State and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

(2.) The appellants have put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dtd. 8/5/2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1467/2024, wherein the suspension of the petitioner has been set aside, on the ground that no order for extension or review of the suspension order had been passed by the State appellants, prior to the expiry of three months' period after the initial suspension order had been issued. The learned Single Judge thus held that the order of extension of the suspension, subsequent to the expiry of three months from the date of taking effect of the suspension order, would not cure the defect of not having undertaken a review for continuing the suspension order. The above decision had been made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2019 (5) GLT 600, which was in relation to a case of deemed suspension under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

(3.) The counsel for the appellants submits that the departmental proceeding is going to be concluded within three weeks and if the impugned judgment and order is to be implemented, the same would cause great problems to the appellants, as the appellants have been charged with accepting a bribe. The counsel for the appellants thus submits that the direction to the appellants, to reinstate the respondent, should be set aside.