In a strongly worded judgment, the Gauhati High Court on October 13, 2025, quashed the suspension of Dr. Atul Bora, Principal of Assam Engineering College, terming it "arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." Justice Robin Phukan directed the State government to reinstate Dr. Bora to a "non-sensitive post" within three months while allowing departmental proceedings to continue.
The Court observed that Dr. Bora’s prolonged suspension, despite completion of one inquiry and significant progress in another, had no valid justification in law.
Background
The case stems from an order issued on October 30, 2024, by the Secretary, Higher Education (Technical) Department, placing Dr. Bora under suspension for alleged irregularities during his tenure as Director of Technical Education between 2011 and 2022. The government accused him of violating rules in the engagement of guest and part-time faculty members and in fixing their remuneration.
This action came months after Dr. Bora was forced to go on leave following a tragic May 2023 accident, where seven students of Assam Engineering College lost their lives. An earlier High-Level Committee report had blamed lax supervision at the college, though it admitted the students had been intoxicated.
Dr. Bora alleged that his suspension and subsequent extensions were “a witch-hunt” to make him the scapegoat for the tragedy, despite his removal from any administrative control over the incident.
Court's Observations
Justice Phukan noted that suspension should be an interim measure, not a tool of punishment. Relying on Supreme Court precedents - Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) and Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India (2013) - the Court reiterated that "protracted suspension without cogent justification amounts to arbitrariness."
“The purpose of suspension," the bench observed, “is to keep the delinquent out of mischief range and ensure unhindered inquiry. But when the officer is already out of position and the inquiry nearly complete, continuing suspension serves no purpose.”
The Court found that at the time of the suspension, Dr. Bora was no longer Director of Technical Education, nor was he in a position to influence the proceedings. He was already under forced mandatory leave since June 2023, which effectively kept him away from administrative work.
Justice Phukan also examined the review meetings of January, April, and July 2025 that extended the suspension. He noted that each review repeated the same reason-an “apprehension of influence”-without any factual basis.
"Such repetitive, mechanical extensions," the Court remarked, "betray a lack of application of mind and reduce administrative review to a mere ritual."
Legal Reasoning
The Court invoked Article 14, emphasizing that absence of arbitrary power is the cornerstone of the rule of law. Citing S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India (1967) and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011), it said decisions made without discernible principles amount to "antithesis of fairness."
Applying the doctrine of proportionality and the Wednesbury principle (which tests administrative reasonableness), Justice Phukan held that the government’s actions failed both standards.
The entire exercise, he wrote, "suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and violates the petitioner’s right to equality. When an officer with an unblemished record since 2008 is kept under suspension for years on dated charges, fairness ceases to exist."
The Court added that public interest - a key justification for suspending an official - was "nowhere demonstrated."
Decision
Concluding that Dr. Bora's suspension had "outlived its purpose," the Court quashed the suspension order dated October 30, 2024, along with the review orders issued on January 27, April 22, and July 19, 2025.
The bench issued a writ of mandamus, directing the Assam government to reinstate Dr. Bora to a non-sensitive post within three months and to complete the pending disciplinary proceedings lawfully.
"No useful purpose would be served by continuing the suspension any longer," Justice Phukan declared. "Reinstatement would not jeopardize the fair trial of departmental inquiries."
The petition was thus allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.
Case Title: Dr. Atul Bora vs. The State of Assam & Others
Case Number: WP(C)/1547/2025
