Gauhati High Court
Matibur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010017042025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/494/2025
MATIBUR RAHMAN
SON OF MD. ABDUL MALEK,
VILLAGE- GERUAMUKH, P.S.- KHATOWAL,
PO- GERUATI BAZAR, DISTRICT- NAGAON
(ASSAM), PIN- 783140.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
PO AND PS- NAGAON
DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM)
PIN-782001.
4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
NAGAON
PO AND PS- NAGAON
Page No.# 2/3
DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM)
PIN- 782001.
5:THE IN-CHARGE
BHTIAKHALI MPHC
C/O- THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
NAGAON
PO AND PS- NAGAON
DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM)
PIN- 782001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS R BEGUM,MRS. S Y
AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
21-02-2025
Heard Shri M. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S.
Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.
The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to prolong suspension.
It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Gr-IV in the Bhatiakhali
MPCH of Nagaon district he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.10.2024
contemplating a departmental proceeding. However, even after expiry of 90 days,
neither the proceeding has been initiated by serving any memorandum of charge nor
the order of suspension has been reviewed and extended in accordance with law.
On the last occasion i.e. 05.02.2025, this Court had granted time to the learned
Standing Counsel to obtain instructions as to whether any review to continue the
suspension was taken within the aforesaid period of 90 days.
Page No.# 3/3
For ready reference the aforesaid order is extracted herein below:
"Heard Mr. MK Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was suspended by an order
dated 24.10.2024 pending drawal of departmental proceeding, however, he is still
under suspension without adhering to any review within a period of 90 days in terms
of mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. The Union of India
and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.
Ms. S Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Health Department seeks some
time to complete her instruction weather any review to continue the suspension was
taken within a period of 90 days.
List this matter once again on 21.02.2025."
Ms. Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that as per the telephonic
instructions, no review has been conducted within the stipulated period of 90 days to
continue the suspension order.
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments
including the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs the Union of India and Anr.
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 is very clear in this regard.
As per the said mandate, review of an order of suspension within 90 days from
the date of such suspension is mandatory if in the mean time, the disciplinary
proceeding has not been initiated by issuance of a charge memo.
The aforesaid mandate not being followed, this Court has no other option but to
interfere with the order of suspension dated 24.10.2024.
The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 accordingly stands set aside and the
petitioner is directed to be re-instated in service.
It is however made clear that the authorities would have liberty to post the
petitioner in any non sensitive posts.
It is further made clear that the present interference is on technical grounds and
will not have any impact or effect on the contemplated disciplinary proceeding.
Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
