The Gauhati High Court set aside a two-year-old suspension of a school employee, reaffirming that a deemed suspension must be reviewed within ninety days or it infringes the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mr. Tama Ngullie, was employed as a Chowkidar (under suspension) in the Government Higher Secondary School, Sungro, Wokha, Nagaland. He sought revocation of a suspension order dated 07.02.2025 that was imposed following his arrest in a criminal case.
Key Facts
- 13.04.1992: Appointed on an ad-hoc basis as Chowkidar.
- 27.10.1992: Service regularised.
- 04.02.2025: FIR lodged alleging sexual assault of the complainant's daughter under Sections 64/65(1) of the BNS Act, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
- 05.02.2025: Arrested in connection with the FIR.
- 07.02.2025: Suspension order issued under Rule 6(2) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 (deemed suspension).
- 21.05.2025: Released on default bail.
- 02.06.2025: Submitted representation to the Principal Director, Directorate of School Education, requesting revocation of the suspension.
- 31.08.2025: The ninety-day period for review expired without any action.
- 02.12.2025: Review committee constituted.
- 16.12.2025: Review committee recommended continuation of the suspension.
- 20.01.2026: Suspension order reviewed and extended, 233 days after the bail communication.
- 10.03.2026: Memorandum of charges issued, 282 days after the bail communication.
- 24.03.2026: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (WP(C) No. 226/2025).
- 12.08.2026: Intra-court appeal heard.
- 14.08.2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 04.02.2025: FIR registered (Women P.S. Case No. 001/2025).
- 05.02.2025: Arrest.
- 07.02.2025: Suspension order under Rule 6(2).
- 21.05.2025: Bail granted.
- 02.06.2025: Representation for revocation filed.
- 24.03.2026: Single Judge dismissed WP(C) No. 226/2025.
- 12.08.2026: Intra-court appeal heard before Justices Susmita Phukan Khaund and Mridul Kumar Kalita.
- 14.08.2026: Judgment and order.
Relief Sought
The appellant prayed for quashing of the suspension order dated 07.02.2025 and its subsequent extension dated 20.01.2026, restoration of his service, and directions for any consequential relief.
The Legal Issue
Whether the Single Judge was correct in holding that the Supreme Court’s observation in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (para 21) does not apply because the appellant had already been served with a memorandum of charges, and consequently whether a deemed suspension that exceeds three months without a statutory review violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The appellant contended that the respondent mis-interpreted Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and failed to review the suspension within the ninety-day period prescribed by law.
- Citing Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, the appellant argued that a suspension cannot extend beyond three months unless a charge-sheet is served within that period and a reasoned order is passed for extension.
- The appellant emphasized that the memorandum of charges was issued on 10.03.2026, well after the ninety-day deadline, rendering the continuation of suspension unlawful and violative of Article 21.
For the Respondent
- The respondent argued that the appellant had been served with a memorandum of charges, therefore the Supreme Court’s observation in Ajay Kumar was inapplicable.
- It highlighted the seriousness of the allegations under the POCSO Act, asserting that the suspension remained justified pending the criminal trial.
- The respondent submitted that procedural delays were due to the pending forensic report and that the review committee’s recommendation to continue the suspension was lawful.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by restating the legal proposition articulated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India: a suspension order must not extend beyond three months if the memorandum of charges or charge-sheet is not served within that period; if it is served, a reasoned order is required for any extension. The Court noted that this principle applies equally to deemed suspensions under Rule 6(2) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967.
"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."
The Court observed that in the present case the memorandum of charges was issued on 10.03.2026, 282 days after the appellant’s bail communication on 02.06.2025, far exceeding the ninety-day window. Consequently, the continuation of the suspension beyond 31.08.2025 (the expiry of the ninety-day period) was unlawful. The fact that a charge-sheet was eventually served did not cure the defect because the statutory requirement is review within ninety days, not merely the later service of charges.
The Court further held that the Single Judge’s reliance on the mere existence of a memorandum of charges to defeat the appellant’s claim was misplaced. The Supreme Court’s observation in Ajay Kumar remains applicable; the distinction drawn by the Single Judge was therefore erroneous.
Applying the established principle, the Court concluded that the suspension order dated 07.02.2025 and its extension dated 20.01.2026 violated the appellant’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 and must be set aside.
The Verdict
The writ appeal is allowed. The suspension order dated 07.02.2025 and its subsequent extension dated 20.01.2026 are quashed and set aside. No monetary damages are awarded. The respondents are directed to restore the appellant’s service status forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Three-Month Review Mandatory for Deemed Suspension
- Deemed suspensions under Rule 6(2) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, must be reviewed within ninety days.
- Failure to do so renders the suspension unconstitutional under Article 21.
Charge Sheet Timing Does Not Cure Delay
- Issuing a memorandum of charges after the ninety-day period does not validate an otherwise unlawful continuation of suspension.
- A reasoned order for extension is required only if the charge sheet is served within the statutory period.
Article 21 Enforces Prompt Review
-
Courts will scrutinise prolonged suspensions for violation of the right to personal liberty.
-
Departments must maintain strict compliance with the three-month rule to avoid judicial intervention.
-
Ensure departmental notices of suspension are accompanied by a review within ninety days.
-
If a charge sheet is to be served, do so before the ninety-day deadline.
-
Document all procedural steps to demonstrate compliance with Article 21.
