Gauhati High Court

Nepal Chandra Mandal vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 25 September, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010122482025




                                                            undefined

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/3247/2025

         NEPAL CHANDRA MANDAL
         S/O LATE HARAKUMAR MANDAL, R/O VILL- ARA GAON, P.S.-
         CHARIDUWAR, P.O.- BALIPARA, PICODE-784101, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT,
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-781006

         4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF
         FOREST FORCE
         ASSAM
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-781037

         5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
          NAGAON DIVISION
          DIST- NAGAON
         ASSAM
                                                                    Page No.# 2/17

            PIN-782001

           6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
            SONITPUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
            SONITPUR
            BISWANATH CHARIALI
            PIN-78417

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS B BHUYAN, P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA,MR A
SHARMA,MR J DAS,MR A TALUKDAR,MS. N CHOUDHURY,MR. A K BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, SC, FINANCE



            Linked Case : WP(C)/2027/2025

           NEPAL CHANDRA MANDAL
           S/O- LATE HARAKUMAR MANDAL

           VILLAGE ARA GAON
           PS CHARIDUWAR
           PO BALIPARA
           DISTRICT SONITPUR
           ASSAM

           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM
           REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
           ASSAM
           ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT
           DISPUR

           2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
           ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI

           3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
           ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
           DISPUR
           GUWAHATI

           4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
           FINANCE DEPARTMENT
           GOVT OF ASSAM
                                                     Page No.# 3/17

DISPUR
GUWAHATI

5:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI

6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NAGAON
DIVISION
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM

7:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
SONITPUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
SONITPUR
BISWANATH CHARIALI
------------

Advocate for : MS B BORA Advocate for : SC FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

Linked Case : Cont.Cas(C)/291/2025

NEPAL CHANDRA MANDAL

VERSUS

MAHENDRA KUMAR YADAV IFS (RETD.) AND 5 ORS.

2:ADIL KHAN IAS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

3:VIRENDRA MITTAL IAS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Page No.# 4/17

FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

4:SANDEEP KUMAR IFS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037

5:KADAM SUHAS TARACHAND IFS THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NAGAON DIVISION DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001

6:SAUMITRA DAS AFS THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SONITPUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION SONITPUR BISWANATH CHARIALI PIN-784176

------------

Advocate for : MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for : MR A CHALIHA (R-3) appearing for MAHENDRA KUMAR YADAV IFS (RETD.) AND 5 ORS.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

Date : 25-09-2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel, Forest Department as well as Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department, State of Assam.

Page No.# 5/17

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department under Memo No. 334897/I/10/13/362/2025-A.

3. The petitioner's case is that while the petitioner was serving as Assistant Conservator of Forest under Nagaon Forest Division, Nagaon, he was arrested on 11.07.2023 in connection with ACB PS Case No. 51/2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance, Anti Corruption, Assam. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 13.07.2023 pending drawl of Departmental Proceeding issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department. After obtaining bail, the petitioner joined the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HoFF, Assam on 01.09.2023 after his request. On 14.03.2024, the petitioner was Show Caused by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department for charges under 5 (five) counts. Against the aforesaid Show Cause, the petitioner submitted a reply on 21.03.2024. However, the petitioner did not receive any information in that regard.

4. In the meantime, before the issuance of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, namely, WP (C) No. 447/2024 on 23.01.2024 before this Court praying for reinstatement of the petitioner on the primary ground that though he had been suspended for more than 90 (Ninety) days, neither any action had been taken by the Department for reinstating him nor his suspension order was reviewed by Page No.# 6/17

the respondent-Department. This Court vide, its judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, interfered with the order of suspension dated 13.07.2023 and directed the respondent-Department to reinstate the petitioner. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, the respondent-Department had reinstated the petitioner and posted him as the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Office of the DFO, Sonitpur SF Division. While he was discharging his duties, the petitioner was again placed under suspension w.e.f. 28.03.2025, wherein, it was stated that though an Enquiry Report had been submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 22.10.2024 in terms of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2024, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied and accordingly, a further enquiry needed to be conducted taking into account the Charge Sheet filed by the Police on 13.09.2023 in the aforesaid Police Case No.ACB PS Case No. 51/2023 pending against him. It was further stated in the suspension order that a prosecution sanction had already been taken in the matter.

5. The primary contention raised by the petitioner in the instant case is that though an Enquiry report has been submitted by the respondent authorities, the same has not been served to the petitioner and also, no Show Cause Notice whatsoever has been served on the petitioner before issuance of the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025. In view of the above, the petitioner prayed for setting aside and quashing of the aforesaid impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025 and reinstating him back in service. This Court vide, an order dated 10.04.2025 suspended the impugned order dated 28.03.2025. On receipt of the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2025, the petitioner immediately submitted a Page No.# 7/17

representation dated 11.04.2025 before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment of Forest Department, Dispur but the respondent authorities did not do anything in compliance of this Court's order dated 10.04.2025. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed a reminder letter dated 02.05.2025. However, since the respondent authorities did not do anything, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition, namely, Cont. Cas (C) No. 291/2025 alleging non-compliance of this Court's order passed on 10.04.2025. In the contempt petition, notices have been issued by this Court upon the respondents/contemnors. The petition is still pending before this Court and the same has also been tagged with the instant writ petition for consideration.

6. The respondent authorities, thereafter had filed an I.A., namely, I.A. (C) No. 3057/2025 in WP (C) No. 2027/2025 for vacating the interim stay order dated 10.04.2025 passed by this Court. However, the aforesaid I.A. has been rejected by this Court vide, it's order dated 17.09.2025.

7. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, namely, WP (C) No. 3247/2025 before this Court for setting aside and quashing the direction issued by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct further enquiry against the petitioner as mentioned in the suspension order dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department contending that the respondent authorities have not served the copy of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been put under suspension without proper Show Cause Notice before issuing the aforesaid suspension order Page No.# 8/17

dated 28.03.2025. This writ petition, namely, WP (C) No.3247/2025 is also tagged with the instant writ petition i.e. WP (C) No.2027/2025.

8. Since both the writ petitions as well as the contempt petition arose from the same cause of action, i.e. suspension order dated 28.03.2025, as agreed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, all the 3 (three) petitions are being heard together for consideration and disposal.

9. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025 mentioned about the Enquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the same has not been served to the petitioner till date and thereby keeping the petitioner in dark about the contents of the same. She submits that though a copy of the Enquiry Report was annexed with the I.A. filed by the respondent-Department for vacation of the stay order dated 10.04.2025, the same was not served upon the petitioner by the respondent-Department before issuing the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025. She submits that the petitioner was suspended on 28.03.2025 without serving any Show Cause Notice, whatsoever, in violation of the settled law relating to Disciplinary proceedings. She submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the impugned order of suspension is nothing but an after thought in order to victimize the petitioner who is on the verge of his retirement on 30.09.2025. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order dated 28.03.205 is bad in law and is in violation of various rules as enshrined under Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

10. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that though Page No.# 9/17

there was a stay order against the impugned order of suspension order dated 28.03.2025 and subsequent rejection of the I.A. for vacation of the stay order, the respondent authorities have not suspended or revoked the aforesaid suspension order. She submits that the respondent authorities has acted high headedly by not suspending the aforesaid impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025, inspite of a contempt petition in that regard has been filed by the petitioner for violation of the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2025.

11. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 3247/2025, submits that the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Department had agreed before this Court that the Department would be required to serve a copy of the Enquiry Report upon the writ petitioner before deferring with the findings recorded in the aforesaid Enquiry Report dated 22.10.2024, no action has been taken by the respondent-Department till date. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the learned Standing counsel had assured the Court that within 3 (three) weeks from passing of the order dated 18.06.2025, a copy of the Enquiry Report along with a Show Cause notice would be served upon the petitioner, however, the same has not been done by the respondent-Department till date. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that vide, aforesaid order dated 18.06.2025, this Court had permitted respondent authorities to go ahead with the matter insofar as the furnishing of the

Enquiry Report and 2nd Show Cause notice upon the petitioner. However, the same was on condition that no further action in the Disciplinary Proceeding would be initiated without the leave of the Court. The learned Page No.# 10/17

Senior counsel submits that though the respondent-Department has not gone ahead with the Disciplinary proceeding till date, however, the petitioner was neither provided with the aforesaid Enquiry Report nor

served with any 2nd Show Cause Notice till date though he has been kept under suspension.

12. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still under suspension though a stay on the suspension order dated 28.03.2025 was passed by this Court. She submits that the petitioner is yet to be reinstated and he is due to retire on 30.09.2025. She submits that the suspension order dated 28.03.2025 has never been extended by the respondent authorities after a proper review of such suspension till date. She submits that due to the aforesaid illegal actions of the respondent-Department, the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss and has to go through tremendous mental agony and harassment for no fault of his.

13. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that continuance of a suspension order beyond 90 days without an extension legally done, is illegal and the same needs to be set aside and quashed. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel has relied on the following cases:

(i) Ajay Kumar Choudhary-vs-Union of India and Another; reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291;

(ii) Union of India and Others-vs- Dipak Mali; reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222;

(iii) Diganta Kalita-vs-State of Assam and Others; judgment dated Page No.# 11/17

22.08.2024 passed in WP (C) No.6827/2023;

(iv) Santosh Kumar-vs-Union of India and Others; judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 431/2024;

(v) State of Assam and Others-vs-Mrigen Haloi; judgment dated 30.07.2021 passed in WA No.28/2021.

The learned Senior counsel on the basis of the ratios laid down in the aforesaid cases, submits that the currency of a suspension should not extend beyond 3 months, if within this period, the Charge Sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. She submits that if the Department cannot submit the Charge Sheet, a reasoned order for such extension of suspension is a must. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior counsel submits that the continuance of the aforesaid impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025 is per se illegal on the face of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Gauhati High Court and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned Senior counsel submits and prays that this Court should reinstate the petitioner by setting aside and quashing the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025.

14. It is seen from the records that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent authorities either in WP (C) No.2027/2025 or WP (C) No. 3247/2025.

15. The learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department submits that the second suspension order which has been impugned in the instant writ petition had to be issued because of the Charge Sheet filed in the pending criminal case against the petitioner i.e. ACB PS Case No. 51/2023. He submits that the instant writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 2027/2025 has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside and quashing of the impugned Page No.# 12/17

suspension order dated 28.03.2025 but the same does not contain any ground of non-extension/non-review of the suspension order, for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 28.03.2025. He further submits that as per Rule 9A of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the Charges along with the statement of allegations needs to be served upon a delinquent officer/employee only when a penalty is proposed to be imposed on the delinquent officer/employee. He submits that in case of a suspension relating to arrest, the same is not required to be served. However, the learned counsel fairly submits that since an inquiry has already been conducted against the petitioner, the Department is bound to submit the same to the petitioner as the suspension order has been passed on the basis of such Enquiry Report. The learned counsel for the respondent-Department further fairly admits that no review meeting for extension of the suspension or has been carried out till date.

16. This Court has heard the counsels appearing for the parties at length.

17. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 reveals that the petitioner was initially suspended by the respondent-Department vide, it's order No.334897/01 dated 13.07.2023 by invoking Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which was later revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in terms of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 447/2024 on the ground that the review for extending the suspension was done beyond the period of 90 days. The petitioner was again put under suspension vide, the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 in exercise of power under Rule 6 (1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. It is seen from Page No.# 13/17

the records as well as an admitted fact that after the aforesaid suspension on 28.03.2025, the petitioner's suspension order was never reviewed or extended though a period of 90 days has already been over long back.

18. The aspect of timely review of an order of suspension is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) has, in categorical terms laid down the requirement of review of suspension order within 90 days if the memorandum of charges/Charge Sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee in the meantime. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) in the following paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference:-

"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 it 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 misdemeanor, 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 facts 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 Page No.# 14/17

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 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 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 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".

19. A similar view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dipak Malik (Supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 has held that review or for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. It was further held that any subsequent review or extension could not revive the order which has already become invalid after expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar (Supra) has also expressed the same view by holding that after the expiry of 90 days, in absence of any review of the suspension order and consequent extension, the suspension order loses it's force or validity.

Page No.# 15/17

20. It is also seen that the ratio laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) is also applicable to the cases of deemed suspension and if no review of suspension has been carried out within 90 days, such deemed suspension and it's continuation would be vitiated and would be liable to be interfered with. This has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrigen Haloi (Supra).

21. In the case of Diganta Kalita (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that if any memorandum of charges/charge sheet is issued to a delinquent officer/employee on a subsequent date after the expiry of 90 days, the same must be accompanied by a reasoned order extending the order of suspension and the reasoned order must have been passed before the expiry of 90 days.

22. In view of the aforesaid principles of law that have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by the Gauhati High Court, this Court is no other opinion than the opinion that a suspension order cannot stay for an indefinite period. If the suspension order has to remain valid beyond the period of 90 days, the same has to be mandatorily reviewed on or before the expiry of 90 days.

23. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the suspension order was passed on 28.03.2025. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing the WP (C) 2027/2025, the aforesaid suspension order was stayed by this Court vide, order dated 10.04.2025. The petitioner, thereafter, has challenged the proposed disciplinary proceeding mentioned in the aforesaid suspension order dated 28.03.2025 due to the fact that Page No.# 16/17

though an inquiry was conducted and an Enquiry Report was submitted before the Department, no copy of the Enquiry Report was served on the petitioner in violation of Rule 9A of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, by filing the WP (C) No. 3247/2025. In WP (C) No. 3247/2025 also, an interim order was passed by this Court to the effect that no further action in the disciplinary proceeding will be initiated without the leave of this Court. The respondent-Department though wanted the stay order dated 10.04.2025 to be vacated, the same was rejected by this Court vide, it's order dated 17.09.2025. In spite of the stay order passed by this Court, the petitioner was not reinstated and therefore, a contempt petition, namely, Cont. Cas (C)/291/2025 was filed by the petitioner.

24. From the above facts, it is clear that the respondent-Department neither revoked the impugned suspension order nor reviewed the order for any extension. The Departmental proceeding proposed against the petitioner also could not proceed due to the stay order passed by this Court on 18.06.2025. The respondent-Department never sought any vacation of the order passed on 18.06.2025.

25. After considering the whole case in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order dated 28.03.2025 cannot be sustained beyond 90 days without any review or extension of the same. Therefore, the order of suspension dated 28.03.2025 is accordingly interfered with and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with immediate effect.

26. In view of the aforesaid findings and direction of this Court, the writ Page No.# 17/17

petition being WP (C) No. 2027/2025 is disposed of as allowed. In consequence of allowing of the WP (C) 2027/2025, the Contempt Petition being Cont. Cas (C) No. 291/2025 is dismissed as infructuous. Further, the WP (C) No. 3247/2025 is also disposed of with the direction that the respondent-Department is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner after complying with the Rules prescribed under Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, more specifically after serving a copy of the Enquiry Report so conducted against the petitioner along with the Show Cause Notice.

27. Accordingly, vide this Common order, the WP(C) No. 2027 & 3247/2025 & Cont. Cas (C) 291/2025 are disposed of in terms of the directions mentioned above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant