Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9218 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 10 December, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010269042025




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:17034-DB

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : WA/392/2025

            DR MRIDU PABAN NATH
            S/O LT. MINA RAM NATH, R/O FLAT NO. 3C, D. MANISHA HIGH, OPP.
            PANTALOONS, G.S. ROAD, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN
            781022

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI 781006

            2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESERCH DEPTT.
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI 78100

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. I. H. Saikia, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam

Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

10.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, Mr. S. Baruah, learned Advocate for the respondents.

Page No.# 2/3

The appellant questions the judgment dated 11.11.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 5645/2024 refusing to interfere with the continued/prolonged suspension of the appellant during the pendency of the domestic proceedings initiated against him.

The appellant had contended before the learned Single Judge that he had been suspended on 28.06.2024 on imaginary charges, but the Memo of Charge for the departmental proceedings was served upon him on 18.07.2021. However, the suspension order was not reviewed within three months of his having been suspended, as mandated by the Spume Court vide its judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, as also the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Assam.

The learned Single Judge found that there were two reviews of the suspension order and the date of review was to be reckoned only from the date of issuance of the charge and not from the date of suspension.

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that till date, even after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, the enquiry has not begun and the appellant has remained under suspension for more than 1½ years. He has not been paid the subsistence allowance and has also been prevented from undertaking private practice.

The facts of the case are that for a medical emergency in his family (his father has esophageal cancer and his mother is suffering from diabetes and dementia), the appellant had applied for 75 days Earned Leave for taking care of parents in Delhi. He was permitted to avail the Page No.# 3/3

leave and to hand over the charge accordingly. However, later he was abruptly asked to return and join his duty. The appellant requested the authorities to convert his Earned Leave into unpaid leave. But, instead, he was suspended on the false charge of his having taken up the assignment of the CEO at a private hospital. This is also one of the charges against him in the departmental proceedings.

Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, submits that there have been regular reviews of the suspension order, but considering the delay in concluding the departmental proceedings, he submits that, in all its probabilities, the departmental proceedings shall be concluded positively within a period of four months, failing which the authorities shall contemplate for revoking the suspension of the appellant.

Taking into account the afore-noted undertaking of the Additional Advocate General, we close this appeal with a direction that if the departmental proceedings against the appellant is not concluded within a period of four months, to be counted from today, the suspension order shall be revoked and for the period the appellant remains under suspension, he shall be paid subsistence allowance with all enhancements, which are permissible under the Rules, subject to the full cooperation of the appellant in the departmental proceedings.

The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

                      JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant