Gauhati High Court
WA/138/2026 of THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. Vs MAMTAZ BEGUM on 17 May 2026
GAHC010061262026 2026:GAU-AS:6807 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/138/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTEDV BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF ASSAM, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ,TRAINING,PENSION AND PUBIC GRIVANCES DEPARTMENT,
GAHC010061262026
2026:GAU-AS:6807
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/138/2026
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTEDV BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF ASSAM, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ,TRAINING,PENSION AND PUBIC
GRIVANCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2: THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 78100
VERSUS
MAMTAZ BEGUM
WIFE OF. AHMED ABDUL KUDDUS, RESIDENT OF ZURONIPATH,R.G.
BARUAH ROAD, P.O.DISPUR, P.S.GEETANAGAR, DISTRICT KAMRUP
METRO, 781022.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K SARMAH, ADDL. SR. GOVT. ADV., Advocate for the Respondent : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY (FOR
CAVEATOR)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18/05/2026
(Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. The appellant State has put to challenge the impugned order dated 27/01/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 6656/2025, by which the respondent’s suspension has been set aside and the appellants have been directed to reinstate the respondent, with liberty being given to transfer the respondent to any post existing in the Department, so as to prevent the respondent from misusing and /or obstructing the investigation/inquiry pending against her. The decision of the learned Single Judge has been made in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, inasmuch as, the appellants did not make any reasoned order for extension of the suspension order, even after charge sheet had been submitted in the case against the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the law is clear on the subject. The peculiar problem faced by the appellants is the fact that the respondent is working as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Directorate of Pension, which is one office in the whole of the State, located in Guwahati. He submits that the respondent may misuse her posting in the said office, and obstruct the investigation/ inquiry pending against her, unless permission is granted to post the respondent outside the Directorate.
4. On considering the dilemma faced by the appellants and as there is no quarrel with the correctness of the decision taken by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the appellants should be given an opportunity to transfer or attach the respondent to any office outside the Directorate, till final disposal of the departmental proceeding/criminal pending against the respondent.
5. Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent also submits that he does not have any quarrel with the proposal put forth by the appellant's counsel.
6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the consent of the parties, the appellants are given liberty to transfer/attach the services of the respondent, within or outside the Directorate, or in some other Department/Secretariat/Directorate, as deemed proper by the appellant nos. 1 & 2. The same should be done within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today.
7. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant