JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned G.A. for all the Respondents. 2. As agreed to by the counsel of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. The Petitioner herein, was initially appointed as driver by the Respondent No. 4 herein vide Memo No. HSE. 1-16/84/161 Dt. 7.1.1988 and was subsequently confirmed in the post vide order No. A.31012/1/89-DHSE/153 dt. 14.5.1993. Respondent No. 4 thereafter vide Memo No. A.11016/1/2001- DHSE Dt. 2.5.203 declared the Petitioner as Grade-I driver. The Petitioner while was in service and posted in the office of the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Aizawl vide Memo No. C.13015/1/2006- DHME/ESST/Pt Dt. 5.12.2008 was placed under suspension contemplating a disciplinary proceeding against him due to unauthorized use of the departmental vehicle which met with an accident leading to severe damages to it and loss of life of a person. Ever since of his suspension till date no departmental proceeding has been drawn against the Petitioner. During the period it is also contended that no review committee was constituted to review the period of suspension of the Petitioner either to revoke the same or to extend the same. It is contended that if the review authority failed to review the suspension in either way before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension there shall be no suspension of the Petitioner. In case of the Petitioner the suspension is not reviewed before expiry of 90 days by the review committee. The suspension cannot sustain in law and it becomes illegal. It is also contended by the Petitioner that on several occasions he submitted representations before the Respondent No. 4 for revoking his suspension and to reinstate him in the service with all benefits. Despite submission of such representation, the Respondent No. 4 is sitting over the matter tight. 4. Under the circumstances of the case, the Petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to the Respondent authorities to reinstate the Petitioner in his service with all consequential relief(s) after setting aside of the order of suspension. 5. Despite submission of such representation, the Respondent No. 4 is sitting over the matter tight. 4. Under the circumstances of the case, the Petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to the Respondent authorities to reinstate the Petitioner in his service with all consequential relief(s) after setting aside of the order of suspension. 5. It is noticed that contemplating a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner for unauthorized use of the departmental vehicle and causing damages to the vehicle and loss of life of a person, the Petitioner was put under suspension vide Memo No. C.13015/1/2006- DHME/ESST/Pt Dt. 5.12.2008 (Annexure- V) but till date no departmental proceeding is commenced against the Petitioner nor the suspension of the Petitioner has been reviewed by the Respondent authorities. 6. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the Petitioner submits, taking recourse of Rule 10 of CCS CCA Rules, that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Sub-rule 1 or 2 of Rule 10 such order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. It is submitted by Mr. Zocchuana that the Petitioner, at no point of time, was detained in custody on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours nor he was convicted by criminal court for an offence and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and was not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. Therefore, Sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 would not come into play in respect of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was put under suspension vide Annexure-V by the Respondent No. 4 contemplating a disciplinary proceeding for unauthorized use of departmental vehicle which met with an accident and received damages and caused loss of life to a person. Therefore, the proviso to Sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 would not be applicable in case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner being put under suspension on and from 5.12.2008 before expiry of 90 days the review committee was to sit and take a decision either to extend or revoke the suspension of the Petitioner. Therefore, the proviso to Sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 would not be applicable in case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner being put under suspension on and from 5.12.2008 before expiry of 90 days the review committee was to sit and take a decision either to extend or revoke the suspension of the Petitioner. This being not done by the Respondent authorities after expiry of 90 days from the date of issue of the suspension order, the suspension cannot sustain in law and liable to be revoked. 7. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned G.A. representing State Respondents, n her usual fairness, submits that till date no departmental proceeding is started as against the Petitioner and no review committee was constituted to look into the suspension of the Petitioner before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. She, however, states that a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. The pendency of the criminal case against the Petitioner would serve no purpose in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS CCA Rules. 8. Taking note of the matter in its entirety and for the ends of justice, the suspension order dated 5.12.2008 is set aside and quashed. Respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the Petitioner in his service earlier held by him and to provide all benefits entitled to. 9. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.