WP(C)/3577/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 7447 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/3577/2025 on 18 September, 2025

 GAHC010131642025




                                              2025:GAU-AS:12982


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




                    WP(C) NO.3577/2025


                         Dr. Aniruddha Kumar,

                         Son of Sri Ram Jiyawan Yadav,

                         Resident of D C Colony,

                         P.S.-Diphu,

                         District- Karbi Anglong,

                         Assam, PIN-782460.




                                                .......Petitioner


                               -Versus-




                         1. Union of India, represented by the
                            Secretary, Ministry of Education,
                            Department of Higher Education,
                            Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.




                                                      Page 1 of 17
                             2. The Assam University, Silchar,
                               represented   by    its Registrar,
                               Dorgokona, Silchar, District-Cachar,
                               Assam, PIN-788011.

                            3. The    Vice      Chancellor,  Assam
                               University, Silchar-788011, Assam.

                            4. The Registrar, Assam University,
                               Dorgokona, Silchar, Dist-Cachar,
                               Assam, PIN-788011.

                            5. University  Grants Commission,
                               represented by its Chairman,
                               Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
                               Delhi-110002.


                                               .......Respondents




                         -BEFORE-

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Petitioner(s)   : Mrs. R S Chowdhury, Ms. G Das, Mr. T
                          Das, Mr. R Chauhan, Mr. R Das, Advocates.

For the Respondent(s)   : Mr. S C Keyal, Standing counsel,
                         Assam University; Dr. P Agarwal,
                         Standing counsel, UGC.

Date of Hearing         : 18.09.2025.

Date of Judgment        : 18.09.2025.




                                                          Page 2 of 17
                JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mrs. R S Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Assam University as well as Ms. J R Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. P Agarwal, learned Standing counsel, UGC for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the continuation and repeated extension of his suspension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding initiated against him on the charges, inter-alia, sexual harassment.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Hindi, Assam University in the Diphu campus, was placed under suspension on 18.12.2024 pending departmental proceeding for alleged sexual harassment on workplace. Within the initial period of 90 days, i.e., on 12.02.2025, the memorandum of charges was issued to the petitioner, which was received by him on 21.02.2025. The suspension of the petitioner was thereafter extended on 10.03.2025 before the expiry of the 90 day period of his suspension.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said extension was done without passing a reasoned order.

5. Mrs. R S Chouwdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -Vs- Union of India and Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein the Apex Court has held

that suspension beyond 90 day period must be supported by a reasoned order upon due review. She further submits that during the pendency of the instant writ proceeding, despite the disciplinary proceeding having been concluded, the respondent university has once again extended the suspension on 03.09.2025, without recording any reasons whatsoever.

6. She accordingly submits that the extensions, being not reasoned, are vitiated and hence, the same warrant interference by this writ Court.

7. She further relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prasanta Dutta -Vs- The State of Assam and 4 Ors., reported in 2023 (4) GauLT 113, wherein the mandate laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) was followed.

8. Per contra, Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Assam University, submits that under Sub-Rule 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, [hereinafter referred to as the CCS(CCA) Rules], the respondent is not required to record any reasons in writing for extension of the suspension beyond the stipulated 90 day period.

9. He further submits that in the present case, the departmental proceeding has been concluded and since the Rules do not require recording reasons, therefore, the impugned extension being in terms of the applicable Rules warrants no interference from this Court.

10. He further submits that compliance of the statutory framework is sufficient and judicial interpretation of further requirements is unwarranted.

11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, which reads as hereunder -

"10 (6) - An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension [before expire of ninety days from the effective date of suspension] on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expire of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period of exceeding one hundred and eight days at a time. 10(7) - An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days."

13. A plain reading of the above provisions shows that the statutory requirement is twofold, (i) a review of suspension by competent authority within 90 days and thereafter before expiry of every extended period and (ii) any single extension shall not extend 180 days.

14. The respondents are right to the extent that Rule 10 (6) and 10 (7) of the said Rules do not expressly stipulate that reasons must be recorded in writing for each extension, however, this contention overlooks the binding law laid down by the apex Court

in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under -

"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. 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 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.

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/charge-sheet 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

person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to server 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 university 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 the 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. "

15. Reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the apex Court has emphasized that suspension essentially being transitory or temporary in nature must be short duration and if the same is required to be continued for longer duration, the same must be based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record. Accordingly, the apex Court has held that that the currency of a suspension order must not extend beyond three months. If within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet 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. Thus, the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is that every extension of suspension, though permissible under Rule 10 (6) and 10 (7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, must be accompanied by reasons reflecting the application of

mind. The object is to ensure that the suspension, which is not a penalty, but an interim measure, does not become punitive/arbitrary.

16. The requirement of recording reasons while extending suspension is not an empty formality. It serves three important purposes: first, it ensures that the authority applies its mind to the necessity of keeping the employee out of service; second, it enables judicial review by disclosing the material basis on which the suspension is prolonged; and third, it balances the right of the employee to livelihood with the employer‟s interest in maintaining institutional discipline. As emphasized in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), the authority must demonstrate why continuation of suspension is indispensable, notwithstanding service of the charge memorandum. The absence of reasons renders the extension a mechanical act, offending the principle of fairness and rendering the order unsustainable.

17. This Court‟s view is fortified by decisions of this Court in a catena of cases. In the case of Prasanta Dutta (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court emphasized the requirement of complying with the constitutional obligation mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India while continuing suspension orders beyond the stipulated period of suspension order. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under -

"35. A further perusal of the said judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) would clearly show that the right to speedy trial which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution was applied in the case of a suspension as well as right to a speedy Departmental

Proceedings. It is in that perspective one has to understand that the Supreme Court sought to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also.

39. It is however also relevant to take note of that as already mentioned the rationale behind the observations in paragraph No 21 in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is with the perspective of moderation of the suspension orders in disciplinary/departmental proceedings. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that if the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served upon the delinquent officer prior to an order of reinstatement, the right which accrued upon the delinquent officer for reinstatement for not serving the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet within 3 (three) months from the date of suspension in normal circumstances and within 3 (three) months from the intimation that the delinquent employee is released on bail or otherwise not in custody or imprisonment in the case of deemed suspension would stand extinguished subject to the compliance that the extension of the suspension is made by a reasoned order at the time of service of the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet.

40. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that as the right to reinstatement springs from Article 21 of the Constitution and the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), a delayed adjudication of such right would run counter to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

42. The next question which arises for consideration is in respect to the second part of the declaration by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) to the effect that if the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that at the time of or immediately upon the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served, the

Disciplinary Authority is also required to apply its mind as regards the necessity to continue the suspension or not. In such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a reasoned order as to why the suspension of the delinquent employee is to be continued. This being the mandate of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding and has to be followed in letter and spirit. It is pertinent herein to note that in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02 2020, the said aspect of the matter is mentioned However, the authorities are required to enforce the same with all vigor else it would amount to contravention of the law declared by the Supreme Court.

52. From the above, it would therefore be seen that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a vindictive misuse of power.

Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of the superior authority are there or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in the reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority while exercising the powers of suspension should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent employee to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the enquiry. In short, the law on suspension can be summarized to the effect that the suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. the serious act of commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness or for ulterior motive. The effect on the public interest due to the employee's continuation in

office is also a relevant and determining factor. Therefore, the facts of each case has to be taken into consideration and no formula of universal application can be laid down in that regard. It is also relevant that suspension order should be passed only when there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and if the charges hence proved would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service or reduction in rank etc."

18. In the present case, though the memorandum of charges was issued within 90 days, the subsequent extension of suspension, i.e., 10.03.2025 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) including the last extension, i.e., 03.09.2025 (Annexure- P to the additional affidavit filed on 15.09.2025) made even after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, was made without any reasoned order.

19. Apt at this stage to refer to the impugned order of extension of suspension dated 10.03.2025, which read as under -

"O R D E R Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Dr Aniruddha Kunar. Department of Hindi. Assam University Diphu Campus is pending and order of suspension is in force vide order No.AUDC/Asstt. Part-1/506/15/4242-54 dated 18th December 2024.

NOW THEREFORE Subject to ratification of the Executive Council of the University the competent authority in exercise of the Powers vested upon by Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules-1965 and as amended from time to time and the powers conferred upon by the Acts and Statutes of the University,

hereby extends the period of suspension of Dr. Aniruddha Kumar for a further period of 180 days in continuation of the earlier suspension order referred to above and with immediate effect from the date of completion of the period of suspension issued vide order number mentioned in the 1 paragraph of this order.

AND WHEREAS during the period of suspension, the said Dr. Aniruddha Kumar will be paid subsistence allowance at rate of 50% (remains unchanged).

AND WHEREAS it is further ordered that during the period that the order shall remain in force Dr Aniruddha Kumar shall not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority te the Pro Vice- Chancellor, AUDC and shall also submit a certificate to the effect that he has not engaged himself in any other employment such as business, trade profession, vocation etc without which no further subsistence allowance shall be released.

This is issued with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor

Registrar Assam University, Silchar"

20. Apt also at to refer to the order of extension of suspension dated 03.09.2025, which read as under -

"O R D E R

Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Dr Aniruddha Kumar. Assistant Professor. Department of Hindi. Assam University Diphu campus is pending and order of suspension is in force vide order No.AUDC/Asstt.Part- 1/506/15/350-61 dated 10 March, 2025.

NOW THEREFORE, Subject to ratification of the Executive Council of the University, the competent authority in exercise of the Powers vested upon by Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA)- Rules, 1965 and as amended from time to time and the

Powers conferred upon by the Acts and Statutes of the University, hereby extends the period of suspension of Dr. Aniruddha Kumar for a further period of 90 days in continuation of earlier suspension order referred to above and with immediate effect from the date of completion of the period of suspension issued vide order number mentioned in the 1"

paragraph of this order.

AND WHEREAS during the period of suspension, the said Dr. Aniruddha Kumar will be paid subsistence allowance at rate of 50% (remains unchanged).

AND WHEREAS it is further ordered that during the period that the order shall remain in force. Dr Aniruddha Kumar shall not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority Le Pro-Vice- Chancellor, AUDC and shall also submit a certificate to the effect that he has not engaged himself in any other employment such as business, trade, profession, vocation etc without which no further subsistence allowance shall be released.

This issued with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.

Registrar Assam University, Silchar"

21. From the reading of the aforesaid two orders of extension of suspension, it is apparent that there are no reasons, whatsoever, recorded therein, for extending the suspension of the petitioner.

22. It is pertinent to refer to the letter dated 07.03.2025 enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, whereby the report of the two member committee on the so-called review of suspension in respect of the petitioner was submitted before the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent university, which read as under -

""The Honourable Vice Chancellor Assam University Silchar date 7/3/2025

Subject- Report of the Iwo-member Committee on review of Suspension in respect of Dr Aniruddha Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Hindi AUDC.

Ref: Notification No. AUDC/Astt Part-1/506/15 dated 6th March, 2025 Honourable Sir, On perusal of the Order of Suspension issued vide No. AUDC/Asstt. Part-1/506/15/4242-54 dated 18th December, 2024 and the issue of Charge sheet to Dr Aniruddha Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Hindi, Assam University Diphu Campus vide No. AUS/LEGAL/F-02(DPP-AK)/2025 12th February, 2025 and the proceedings thereafter, the Committee is of the opinion that as the proceedings is still pending, the period of his suspension may further be extended by 180 days under the provisions of Rule 10(6) &(7) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 and the subsistence allowance may remain unchanged.

Shri Biswajit Chandra Deb Prof Anup Kumar Dey Deputy Registrar, AUDC Department of English ,AUS.

(Member) (Chairperson)"

23. Reading of the aforesaid also does not indicate any reasons for the extension of the suspension by impugned order dated 10.03.2025. Pertinent that during the course of hearing, Mr. S C Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent university has placed the 2nd report of the two member committee dated 18.08.2025 on review of suspension in respect of the petitioner, which is kept on record and marked as „X‟. A perusal of the same also does not indicate any reasons, whatsoever, for further extension, except that since the disciplinary proceeding is still pending, the period of his suspension must further be extended by 90 days, whereafter the suspension of the petitioner was further extended by order dated 03.09.2025. It is worthwhile to mention that on 14.08.2025, Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing

counsel, Assam University has categorically submitted before this Court that the inquiry authority is in the process of furnishing the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority and thereafter, the disciplinary authority is likely to take appropriate decision and pass orders in the matter and thereafter, during the course of hearing he has confirmed that the disciplinary proceeding has been concluded, however, despite the same, it appears that further extension of the impugned suspension has been done.

24. It is thus clear that the so-called reviews consist only of mechanical approval, without disclosure of rationale. This is directly contrary to the mandate of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra).

25. The submission that Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules does not require reasons is untenable because statutory Rules must be read in harmony with the binding exposition of law laid down by the apex Court. Rules provide the procedural framework, but the apex Court has clarified the constitutional requirement of fairness, which obliges the recording of reasons. Hence, I am of the unhesitant view that the continuation of the suspension beyond the expiry of the initial 90 day period of suspension without recording reasons is totally illegal.

26. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings have since concluded does not cure the illegally in continuing the suspension, without reasoned orders. The legal consequence of such illegality survives for the purposes of service benefits. Once the extensions are found to be unsustainable, the suspension is deemed to have lapsed on the expiry of 90 days from its commencement. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to claim consequential

benefits such as, restoration of full salary and allowances for the period after such lapse, continuity of service and other incidental benefits, subject, of course, to adjustment against any penalty ultimately imposed in the disciplinary proceedings.

27. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the allegations against the petitioner are of a serious nature. While this Court has held the extensions to be unsustainable, the institutional interest of maintaining a safe and conducive environment in the university must also be safeguarded. Therefore, the liberty is reserved to the respondent university to transfer the petitioner to any other campus of the university, if so deemed appropriate, pending final decision in the departmental proceedings and thereafter.

28. Further, in order to ensure protection of the complainant and the witnesses, it is directed that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly interfere with, contact, or cause harassment to the complainant or any witnesses involved in the case. This protective clause is issued in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court to balance competing interests, and shall not be construed as a finding on the merits of the allegations. The same shall not influence or prejudice the final decision of the disciplinary authority or any appellate forum. Any violation of this condition, shall entitle the respondents to seek appropriate orders, including revival of suspension, in accordance with law.

29. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed.

30. Accordingly, the impugned extension orders of suspension of the petitioner dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-G to the writ petition)

and 03.09.2025 (Annexure-P to the additional affidavit filed on 15.09.2025) are quashed and it is declared that the suspension of the petitioner stood lapsed on the expiry of 90 days from the date of the initial suspension order, in the absence of any reasoned orders as mandated in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra).

31. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits, including pay and continuity of service, subject to adjustment in accordance with the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings already concluded.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant